Member - Davoe (Nullagine) posted:

No superceded toyota Ever has has suffered a price drop as the result of a new model
EG the new v8 70 series has not dropped the prices on the TD ute
And the 100 seies didnt drop the price of the 80 same as the 79 ute didnt drop the prices of the 75

Patrol22 posted:

Andrew...is that really 15-18 k/l??? If so, don't shift to a diesel....best you will do is about 14l/100k (or 7 k/l) [My mate gets around 14 l/100k from his LC100 1HZ and I get around 13l/100k from my 2.8 patrol] - I'm guessing you really meant 15-18 l/100k

BennyGU posted:

2.8 he he he this is where the little bugger gets it own back.

My GU 2.8 with 33" BFGs has a long term average of 12.7l/100km and whilst it isnt flogged it isn't driven for economy either. Sits on 105km/hr with two surfboards and a/c and will get 11l/100km.

looking forward to see what happens when 3" zorst and chip go in.......... might pull the skim off a glass of milk at least.

Ben

PS: Andrew
Beaudesert exhausts do a decent extractor and 2.75???? inch exhaust in mild or SS for the 100 V8. ph (07) 5541 4114 they ship AUS wide for around $100 too.

Taipan XP said they are releasing a kit for the V8 shortly, highly reccomend this lot they are doing my GU next month.
07 5593 5225

Also fit a Unichip for more stonk and a long range tank, I do not reccomend the K&N air filter as the oil can stuff your MAF ($$$$) and they lot a lot of rubbish in compared to the old OE filter, and your on a winner. You may not have the economy of a TD but when you need absolute power the V8 will destroy a diesel and this is coming for a life long diesel owner. I would pick the V8 over the 4.2TD cruiser any day, $12k buys alot of petrol.

The Esplanade posted:

You are correct. I realised this after I had submitted. Too bad we are unable to edit our posts.
I generally get around 15 - 17 l/100km. Whereas teh TD get around 10-12 l/100km
Thanks for the correction
Andrew

Member - Rotord posted:

$12,000 would buy more than a lot of petrol ! If you bought $12,000 worth of units in Colonial First State Global Rescources Fund a year ago today it would be worth $17.139 . That puts you $5,139 ahead , and a year has passed so capital gains tax falls to roughly 25% , so now you have $3854 to spend on petrol , and you have your original investment to earn you petrol money next year . The return rate will increase in line with any fuel price rises , and you have emergency funds available , and when you finish driving you can cash in your investment and get your money back . So anyone who spent the extra money on a deisel just for economy probably made the wrong decision .You would of course be even better off if you paid your fuel bill out of pocket , rolled over the dividends and let the investment increase at a compound rate .At last years rate of increase that would double your money every 1.7 years and this is unlikely but doubling your money every 4 or 5 years could be possibe . And yes I know that plenty of you are already doing this with shares in breweries .

The Esplanade posted:

Rotord, that is very serious numbers for so early in the morning.
I guess if we had bought $60k of Colonial we would be even better of and just ride a bike. (only joking)
I keep returning to these ideas as often we are driven by the heart and not by sound economic judgment.
Thanks though for the info. It is good to hear other peoples thoughts.
Regards
Andrew

The Esplanade posted:

Thanks for the running costs figures. I have also read these and use them to convince me to stick with the V8. Just somewhere deep inside tells me the the TD is better. Maybe it is a result of too much reading and that we all need a TD. I have been very happy with the V8. Great 4wd. Taken me everywhere I have needed to go.
I only really noticed a problem when we went on a big trip this year. The smaller range compared to the TD was shown up. Buying fuel at elevated prices in outback areas. Also. carrying fuel and water in jerry's took up valuable space.
I guess having a long range means that I will need to put x2 spares on the rear bar. Water will then need to go somewhere else. Questions questions questions.
Life is always full of compromise.
Regards
Andrew

Kev M posted:

Esplanade,

Have you thought about fitting a combo long range tank. The TR62 LR Tanks hold 122l of fuel and 55l of water. It may free up some space for other items.
or
The TR52 LR Tank holds 182l of fuel and store the water in the vehicle

Both tanks will not fit with a OE towbar

Cheers Kev

The Esplanade posted:

Hi Phillip
Interesting info. Have you had any experience with the extractors?
The dyno reports indicate that there is an improvement. The return maybe not worth the outlay. Around $2500 for the exhaust.
I have also heard that the OE air cleaner is excellent. The foam filters are OK but need to be cleaned very regularly.
Regards
Andrew

Paul (WA) posted:

Philip,

Maybe have a look at the original factory fitted exhaust manifold picture on my rig page and see if you think extractors wouldn't make a difference. They did on my car. Quite noticeable in fact. It can breathe now.

Armadale 4wd told me that up to 17% increase can be achieved with one particular system - measured on the dyno. The average is around 5-10% apparently

Regards,

Paul

Philip A posted:

I concede they look pretty terrible, but I can show you a series of tests on very similar chev manifolds where the difference between them and extractors was very small. And Rams Horns ( type of Chev manifold with 2x2 into centre dump) were AFAIR better. Also the V8 is a low revving engine and with an auto should rarely exceed say 2500RPM in day to day use.
However I have no doubt that it is possible tio get up to 15% extra peak power, and you will certainly feel it. But you will not see 15% better economy.

However I am not saying that a complete exhaust system will not give more power across the range, just that most sellers compare the complete system with a standard system and never tell ( or maybe know) where the gains are.Pipe size? mufflers? extractors?

It may be that you will get 80% of the improvement with just a free flow muffler for $200. And this improvement will be only at high gas velocities, ie full throttle, as most of the time the muffler passes plenty of air for part throttle operation with low back pressure.

Second, in the real world you are not driving the car like on a dyno ( full throttle), so from the point of view of fuel economy on say 10%TPS setting, I think the gains are very small.
ask the exhaust supplier
1 where are the gains muffler? pipe size?extractors? %s?
2 Show me a dyno chart at 10% throttle at 2000RPM
3 Show me the specific fuel usage at 2000RPM on equal loads but maybe different throttle settings, if in fact more power is made.
I bet they can/will do none of those things, and its not in their interests to sell you just a muffler when their business is in selling extractors/systems with far more profit.
Regards Philip A

The Esplanade posted:

Thanks for the very insightful information. I guess you can make any figures represent anything if you try hard enough.

Paul (WA) posted:

Philip,

Thanks for that. Some valuable info there.

Maybe I do notice the difference in my vehicle because it is a manual and is regularly revving over 2500 rpm when.

Maybe more power isn't made, but the vehicle feels more responsive to throttle inputs.

You could be right about where the gains come from. I had the muffler fitted first and then the extractors and hi flow cats. It seemed like there were small gains on both occasions.

It will be interesting to see whether a piggy back chip provides any additional benefit. The person I spoke to said the engine can be tuned down to 1200 rpm (for a manual). I have spoken to a number of people about his tuning skills and he has a good reputation in the 4wd industry.

The reason for making these changes was to improve performance and economy, not one or the other. Not sure if both criteria have been met. Certainly enjoy driving the vehicle more.

Regards,

Paul

Philip A posted:

I agree. My car has 50% !! more power from idle tapering to say 20% at 3000 up to 40% at high revs over a standard 3.9.

To say that I am happy with the performance is an understatement. Outdragged a 4.8 auto cruiser the other night with 3 people in, and only driver in Cruiser. Had to get that one in.
But the economy is sh1thouse.
If you want good cruising economy, you should find the revs you want and tell the dyno guy to tune it to say 15.5:1 AFR at those revs at small say 10 % throttle.
Now many will resist this as it may cause detonation, the lean condition has to be tapered into the other settings, and the rule of unintended consequences( or Murphy's) for short, may mean you get a "tip in " hesitation , or it may be a dog when warming up, may stall etc.
Graeme Cooper said to me that they conservatively set the Unichip timing lead, so that there is no detonation, seeming to ignore the fact that I am an educated consumer , and am quite capable of retarding the timing.
They are very concerned about comebacks.
Regards Philip A

Paul (WA) posted:

Philip,

Thanks for the information on the cruising economy. I'll definitely ask about the air fuel ratio you suggest when it gets done.

It's understandable that they go for conservative settings on the Unichip to avoid any possibility of engine damage.

I haven't really seen that much difference in fuel economy around town. On the open road slightly better, but it would be better if it wasn't revving at 2600 rpm in 5th gear at 100 km/h (compared to the auto which sits on 2,200 rpm at the same speed). The 6 speed in the 200 series will make a difference there you would think.

Regardless of the little things, it's still a pleasure to drive whether on the road or out in the bush, which is probably the same as a lot of other 4WD brands and models.

Regards,

Paul