Are There 2 Toyota Turbo V8 Diesels?
Submitted: Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:42
ThreadID:
54690
Views:
2921
Replies:
5
FollowUps:
15
This Thread has been Archived
Geepeem
HI,
I have just been reading the specifications for the new model Toyotas (200 series wagon and the 70 series commercial vehicles).
The LC200 V8 turbo diesel develops 195 Kw (@3400rpm) and 650Nm torque (@1600-2600 rpm).
However in the 70 series the V8 turbo diesel develops 151 kw of power (@3400rpm) and 430 Nm torque (@1200-3200rpm). Also the fuel economy in the 70 series is 11.5l/100km (combined cycle) but 10.3 l/100km (combined cycle) in the LC200 series.
Does any one know if this difference is just a "chip" or some calibration of the engine or are they two distinct (tehnically different) engines albeit with exactly the same displacement (4461 cm3).
I had always assumed thesenew V8 diesels in both models to be identical but obviously they are not.
Can anyone shed any light on this - if its a chip making the difference can you get the better (more power less fuel) chip from the LC200 for the 70 series?
Reply By: Kev & Darkie - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:53
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:53
The 70 series motor only has one Turbo whereas the 200 Series has twin turbos.
Cheers Kev
| Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.Lifetime Member
My Profile My Blog Send Message |
AnswerID:
288112
Follow Up By: Geepeem - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:01
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:01
Thanks Kev,
I didn't pick that up on my specs sheet- I just checked and it says exactly the same for both " direct injection, turbo charged and intercooled".
But that would explain it - the LC200 is a much heavier vehicle but has more power, more torque and uses less fuel than the 70 series engine. Quite amazing in my books.
Cheers,
Glen
FollowupID:
553366
Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 13:51
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 13:51
Kev
G'Day Queenslander, hey if he needs more power he could fit one of these engines.
Image Could Not Be Found
.
FollowupID:
553409
Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 13:58
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 13:58
Kev
Check this out
.
FollowupID:
553410
Reply By: Gronk - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:25
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:25
Is there anyone out there with a 200 series who is getting anywhere near the fuel figs claimed ( 10 - 11 l/100 )
Have heard eports of this figure being a lot higher ??
AnswerID:
288119
Follow Up By: Mikee5 (Logan QLD) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:20
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:20
Hi Gronk, the figures are based on an international standard to compare vehicles. It will never translate to what the vehicle consumes in real life.
Mike
FollowupID:
553376
Follow Up By: Gone Bush (WA) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:25
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:25
My (or Hers to be precise) LC200 has only done 3000k's so far and I'm getting 12l/100k.
It's hard to resist putting the boot in.
On the LCOOL site, members there are getting as good as 9.8 l/100k on a long run.
I think they will all get as advertised or better after about 20,000ks.
My single turbo TDV8 trayback gets as advertised (24mpg, 11.8 l/100k).
cheers
FollowupID:
553378
Follow Up By: Gronk - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:56
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:56
Good to hear, as reports of 18l/100 were maybe from leadfoots or people not doing an honest apprasial..
FollowupID:
553394
Follow Up By: Gone Bush (WA) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 15:29
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 15:29
Or towing a van in adverse conditions.
FollowupID:
553422
Follow Up By: Member No 1- Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 18:20
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 18:20
i gave up long ago not wanting to put the boot in
now i just drive it like a ferrari...its a slow one but hey it feels when 2&1/4 tonne is gearing up to try and fly
FollowupID:
553449
Follow Up By: Member No 1- Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 18:21
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 18:21
put good after feels
FollowupID:
553450
Follow Up By: Member - Tony W (VIC) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 20:59
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 20:59
My first tank full got 15.8l/100km.
I was pretty pleased given it has done under 500km, 90% in traffic and I can't help putting the foot down a bit.
Boy does this thing go well.
FollowupID:
553482
Reply By: Member - Shane D (QLD) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 17:38
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 17:38
I would suggest that the 200 in more aero dynamic thus giving better fuel economy, may also have different gearing than the 7#
Shane
AnswerID:
288170
Follow Up By: Gone Bush (WA) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 18:31
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 18:31
When describing the 79 series trayback, troopy etc you can't use the word "aerodynamic" in the sentence unless it's surrounded by the words:
"really crap" (insert "aerodynamic" here) "qualities".
cheers
FollowupID:
553453
Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 22:10
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 22:10
"aerodynamics of a house brick" comes to mind..............
FollowupID:
553508
Follow Up By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 23:17
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 23:17
Block of flats Phil !!!
FollowupID:
553522
Reply By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 19:11
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 19:11
The 70 series is detuned!! Its that simple!! Michael
AnswerID:
288186
Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 21:17
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 21:17
So like all good 70 series will last twice as long... fingers crossed.. :-)
FollowupID:
553490
Follow Up By: Gone Bush (WA) - Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 22:54
Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 22:54
I agree. It's probably detuned to match the gearbox.
The gearbox is from the manual 100 series and the power and torque figures are too.
cheers
FollowupID:
553520
Reply By: Muzzgit [WA] - Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 00:13