Thread: D4 water crossing depths

1.4m is pretty deep. IMO not worth the risk, as even if you make it though, that much water will likely make its way to every ECU eventually and you'll be chasing gremlins for months.

And, if you get water in the car (highly likely if you are in the water for any length of time), the inside of your car will never smell the same again.

Even in a well prepared, non-ecu Defender this would be pushing the limits of what you'd want to be doing.... (and that thing would definitely let the water in).

Originally Posted by Konradical

Hi,

Was planning a trip and have found out that a water crossing on the track is at 1.4m. I can't be sure that this is 100% true as I am only going off the information from an information hotline who didn't really know where I was talking about.

Now with the knowledge that the book says the maximum wading depth in off road height is 700mm and I could probably get 60mm on top of that with the extended rods, what could be possible with some prep?

We have the factory RAI, which I understand isn't sealed, but if we cover the front of the car with a tarp or something and proceed at a constant speed, would a crossing this deep be possible?

Look forward to the replies.

Once you go deeper than 700mm the mass of water pushing against the vehicle becomes the issue. AFAIK all manufacturers quote a wading depth of 700mm for that reason.

Driving through the Goyder River to/from Gove at around 700mm depth a few times convinced me that it was pretty spot on.

Simply put, at 1.4m you would be likely to float away downstream.

Standing or flowing water? Big difference! I have gone through standing water at about 1.5m (the deepest bit in the middle - only a bit over a car length at that depth. That was in a non-ecu vehicle, with a sealed snorkel, and was a case of get out of the area or stay as a "crispy critter" Not recommended as a general thing to do!
The information you have been given could be highly erroneous- many creeks out west have 1.4m flood markers on them - I think the Main Roads must have got a bulk order discount, because some of the creeks reaching that depth would mean literally millions of square miles underwater (think biblical flood). Most roads have people somewhere along them, graziers, communities, mining operations etc. They would be a better source of information- as are the police, and the Shire road maintenance crew.

Just as a follow up, what is the point of an RAI if it's not sealed? I'd be sorting that out as a priority!

Thanks for your replies.

I was thinking about this last night after the post and I remembered that I have driven through about 20m of water on the bonnet line before and remember the feeling of the car jittering with the flow of water.

The track in question is the reynolds River road or Litchfield back track and really the words seem to be the fact that there are markers to indicate depth (1.4m) and I think that's where there was confusion with the person on the phone. I also believe the water maybe still with a little flow.


I have a guy at work getting hold of a fella who did the track last week who could shed some light.

I don't understand why they would open a tourist track with river crossings at that height when their own rangers aren't supposed to go through water much more than 400mm.

The RAI is simply to get air from a area that is less dusty than the standard intake. It's a LR thing I think. I believe there is a thread here that shows the procedure for sealing it up.

I was at Litchfield just a week or so back. It's well into the dry, and many of the waterfalls are below mid-flow, so I don't think the creeks will be running hard until the storm season comes in, and there's no sign of Leichhardts grasshoppers on the Kakadu escarpment, so that's a while away yet..
I'd still be sealing the RAI though. If it's not waterproof, then it's definitely not dust proof.

Hi,

Was planning a trip and have found out that a water crossing on the track is at 1.4m. I can't be sure that this is 100% true as I am only going off the information from an information hotline who didn't really know where I was talking about.

1.4m is chest deep and I have my doubts that any of the crossings on the Reynolds river track would be that deep at this time of the year.
IF however the information is accurate I personally wouldn't risk a 1.4m crossing as the chances of getting washed away are pretty good at that depth, You could always head down to the Daly and get onto the track from the Southern end so that you don't have to make the crossing to get to that area.