Now Thats a surprize

Many here wouldn't believe I'm ambivelent about car makes having brought 3 Patrols and 3 RAV4's new Notso , you just analyse your needs objectively and get what fits best.

Hi Mike

No 18 inch and it is interesting to analyze - but I will write up something on it to get others inputs in the next couple of days when I have pictures.

Its a bit like last week during the rescue of the 200 series , the driver was treating the car kindly and the car wouldn't budge until the kids put the boot in.

(To be fair the 1yo 200 series had recently broke 2 CV joints in different incidents so driver was understandably gun shy).

Most likely the driver simply did not know how to drive his vehicle. The obvious reason is that Stability Control was still activated as this will cut power at 2700rpm - or they just had the wrong TR setting selected.

You are so right Garry. I was out with a very experienced 4wdriver in his new D4 at Stockton a few months back and he came within an ace of bogging it until I told him a few tips on the terrain response settings. Driving the computer settings is a little different and makes all the difference.

I would have thought that also Lyn but its hard to beat side by side comparo's if reported honestly.

And I don't believe in conspiracy theories without real hard proof , except of course that Elvis is still alive

This is the fuel summary from the SMH:

Don't fuel around
The Simpson is one of a handful of major treks in Australia where you'll probably need to carry additional fuel.

Birdsville to Mount Dare is almost 600 kilometres, which all of these cars will do in regular driving. But throw in the soft sand and hills to climb, and it's a different story.

It was the Patrol that needed the most. On top of its 140-litre tank we pumped 60 litres from jerrycans. In the end it used about 180 litres - upwards of 30 litres per 100 kilometres in rougher stretches - with the average fuel use across our test route (Birdsville to Kulgera, in the Northern Territory) of 18.9L/100km.

It was closely followed by the LandCruiser, which used 17.4L/100km. What raised the Cruiser's overall fuel use was the higher-speed running - it had a packed roof rack that ruined its aerodynamic drag.

But the Cruiser was frugal in the rough stuff, arriving at Mount Dare with 200 kilometres of range in its 138-litre tank. It was the only one that would cross the desert without a jerrycan.

The Range Rover was most economical, using just 12.3L/100km, but its tiny, 80-litre tank meant it needed at least one jerrycan to cross.

The Benz's 100-litre tank and 14.9L/100km fuel use meant it almost made the crossing without extra fuel, but we put in five litres just to be sure.

The SMH comparison test also stated that the Landcruiser's roofrack was loaded to the max (170 kg) including 100lt fuel required by the other vehicles in the test . Surely you can't call that a comparison test, The aerodynamics are compromised.

Thanks Lynn I read the article and feel better now, its seems to support the 4wd Action roadtest.

The difference between the 2 cars 18.9/17.4 or under 10% over sections where speed was on average lower (less effect of wind)

Now cruiser is clearly better in this respect , but just look how the gap has closed.

It also stated that car used around 30 lt in the hard stuff which is more like what I have experienced - for a few minutes I thought I might have to rush out and buy one !

Yeah, Yota has been a bit cash strapped lately EH! I recall when the new Triton came out in 2006, NRMA ran a comparo and even though the Triton clearly won every category, they still gave it to Yota! I sent em an email and asked how it happened, but they didn't come up with an answer.

Its easy to expect the worst in this world guys , but I try and resist the jaded approach.

Still the diesels are always roughly 30% less fuel and the mag writers would know this so I would have hoped for a bit more explaination as to why !

The cost of either of them would raise my blood pressure Muz .

Hi Axle

Yeah your right and wouldn't I love that new 5.6lt v8 in my GU Patrol.

I do have trouble with the figures presented , but I crossed a section of the Simpson 3 times recently and it was like a big touring track with no real issues , but then my fuel use went to 30+ in the heavy moguls so I suppose if the make up of the drive was such that the Patrol engine stayed mostly in the sweet spot then the result may be credible.

Give it a couple of years. Diesel has had squillions thrown at it over the past 20 years in R&D to get it to this stage - it won't get much better. Mercedes announced 3 years ago that they won't be spending any more one diesel development - they are looking further afield.
Hang a blower and a turbo off the big Nissan motor, call it a TSi (vw petrol super/turbo charging tech), and then come back and see how low down torque and towing performance goes........... the v8 petrol would be overkill in extremis with the correct technology applied to it. There just isn't the market pressure at the moment to bring it out - yet.

Sorry - Tfsi - see audi q7 v8 - the technology is here and will filter down as it always does.

We tread lightly Skull - I try not to criticise , just repeating the mags data is enough.

Now that's a Worry!!.


Chees Axle.

I tend to believe the info from places like LCOOL rather than a web site set up by a bloke who obviously feels aggrieved. (Not without reason)

LCOOL provides a much more balanced and reasoned level of info from a huge cross section of owners many who have owned their vehicles for a number of years now and yes sometimes things are not good, problems and issues do occur.

This link posted by Rob tends to focus on oil consumption issues that were for the most part an issue on the very early series of V8 which appear to be now almost non existent and a few dealers who seem to have lost the meaning of customer service.

So John, you are saying that you don't believe the people who posted on "Oh What a Lemon" website. The website was set up to get input from people who had experienced problems with the LC200.

If you care to read the posts you will find that the problems are not just oil consumption and not "non existent" currently.

I think people should read the posts on the website for themselves and make up their own minds.

That's not what I said at all, maybe you should read my post properly, verbaling me doesn't help.

As I said most of the posts on that site refer to issues when the V8 was first released which was 6 odd years ago now, the dating of the actual posts where they are actually dated reflect that.
Issues still occur with current model Toyotas, but are becoming rarer as can be seen by reporting on the specialist forums like LCOOL were a massive amount of technical discussion on the issues and the rectification provides a very balanced and informative view.

Or you could buy an old tech Toyota, Nissan, Landrover, Jeep, whatever put some decent tyres and seats in it and drive around all the bogged new ones while their frustrated, confused drivers try to read the manuals and download the latest apppppssss to figure out why their new megabuck all singing all dancing toy got bogged in their own exhaust smoke.

hehehehehehe


Cheers
Pop

Thanks Philip

I have created another thread with pictures in it and wonder if you could review it and see if your explanation still holds.