AWD systems not created equal video

[Penguin]

I would love to have a Defender 90 with a modern turbodiesel, and some air lockers.

[Platinum_Racing]

Sure, a modified Land Rover yes...

 

I think I'll stick with a high torque Cummins Turbo Diesel with locked Dana Axles and a decent lift if I ever decide to hit the mud and trails again.

[Penguin]

Wheelbase is too long for real off road basing on a vehicle that big.

[Platinum_Racing]

True, but considering the last Dodge Ram W350 I had with Dana axles (Not locked) and a Cummins 6BT engine I'd say it wasn't too bad. It was sprung way too hard for serious articulation, but its weight countered that just fine. Instead of flexing over obstacles, it just kinda flattened them. I only got it stuck twice, unfortunately the second time was when it met its demise (Clay up to the doors and above one of the big tires).

 

If I ever got another one I wouldn't hesitate to give it a lift, lock the diffs, get some BFG A/T tires and wheel it some more. It would have to be another Getrag 5 speed stick shift though, the 3 speed auto's are useless. I can't tell you how useful a granny gear is in the rough. With 4 wheel low and a granny gear first with peak torque before 2K RPM meant I could literally pull stumps without breaking a sweat. Those things could yank anything you wanted, just so long as you're not in a hurry.

[EvoFire]

Granny gears are the ones where you can just release the clutch and it won't stall?

[Penguin]

Pretty much. They are creeping gears that magnify torque to the wheels exponentially. Oh the joys of a low range transfer case.

[Platinum_Racing]

Granny gears are the ones where you can just release the clutch and it won't stall?

 

 

 

Yup. First gear in my Cummins diesel got the truck moving to about 4 MPH. I never used it on the street because it was useless. I just started from second. You don't have to have a transfer case to have a granny gear by the way. They made my old Cummins in 2WD variants with the same Getrag 5 speed that had a granny gear also. Its just that with a granny gear And a low range transfer case you're pretty much unstoppable. That s^&% will go through buildings and tow convoys.

 

 

 

In that Cummins you could just drop the clutch with no throttle in second and not stall. If you let the clutch out a little slower you could even do it in third without giving it any gas. If you redlined the motor (2,800 RPM) at a dead stop and dropped the clutch straight from third gear the BF Goodrich A/T tires would just howl. That's why low end torque is king, especially for crawling and wheelin'. In 4 wheel low, first gear on that truck didn't even go 1 MPH. The engine would be redlined at 2,800 RPM and you'd be creeping along at less than a mile per hour pulling a yacht made out of solid concrete behind you. That thing was boss.

 

Then again, it did have 4:10 axle ratios too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I did pick up an old Land Rover, I'd probably drop a Cummins 4BT engine into it. It was the same design as the 6BT, but with the center 2 cylinders cut out, turning a 5.9L straight 6 into a 3.9L straight 4. Still, they didn't have any emission control or troublesome computers, and they still made 360 ft/lbs of torque before 2K RPM. In a Land Rover, that would be some nasty grunt.

[ehsnils]

I would say that if you do drop a bigger engine in a Land Rover you will need to change the whole transmission including axles.

 

The Series II model 109 are notorious for eating rear axles - they use the same axles as the 88, but has more weight which causes metal fatigue in the axles.

 

But on the other hand - the diesel in the Series II is crap - and replacing it with a diesel from a MB 200, 220 or 240 would be a good thing. My parents have had a 109, and they do have a 110FC so I have some experience from them.

 

And by the way - if you think that there are tight spots in the subies when you are working with them you haven't seen anything yet... Changing starter motor in the 110FC requires you to remove the cylinder head. Otherwise there is no way to get it out.

[Platinum_Racing]

That settles it. Should I ever get a Land Rover (Unlikely) I'm just gonna have to drop a Cummins 4BT with some Dana 60 or 70 axles in there.

[ehsnils]

From what I understand the Toyota Landcruiser Series 80 is the best alternative.

[Brady]

As ehnils pointed out, I agree that drivetrain layout isn't a serious indicator of performance and implementation of an AWD system. I have a 2008 Ford Taurus AWD fro my company car, and though I can tell that the system isn't the same as the LGT, I can honestly say that it is every bit as capable for real world driving situations. I've racked up 107,000 miles in about 22 months on the Taurus, andmuch of that has been winter mountain driving throughout the Rockies. I've never felt that the AWD system has been anything less than sufficient, and never inferior for my driving needs. There isn't as much instant torque to the rear, so it's not as easy to get the Taurus to pirhouette as it is in the LGT, but then again, I don't need to be "tossing" a 4000 lb car for just about any reason. I can say that I've (involuntarily) drifted the vehicle at 60 mph on an icy section of I-70 and the handling was very predictable and, dare I say almost neutral! (That was with about 100 lbs of steel at the furthest most rear of the trunk which may have diminished understeer).

 

Really, considering the obviously different design and intent of the two cars, I really feel that the transverse layout in the Taurus has little to no adverse affect on the AWD performance of the vehicle. It has very much shifted my perception of Ford having lived with this car for about 2 years now.

[Penguin]

Ford seems to have really gotten their head out of their corporate ass so to speak. They are making some pretty compelling vehicles again.

[Brady]

Agreed. Quality is fairly impressive as well. Back to the 2008 Taurus ... styling is OK ... I don't think it's anything exciting, but there's also little to complain about. On the other hand, the 2010 Taurus, I think, is a very attractive package and the styling department did a very good job. The 2010's interior is visually smaller, but that has more to do with the more ergonomic center console making the driver and passenger spaces appear more hemmed in (so much for road-head in that car). In reality, it's plenty spacious and comfortable.

 

In excess of 100,000 miles, here's the grand list of "issues" I've had in the car:

 

- USB port for Sync system died in 4 hours. Microsoft issue. Covered in TSB. Fixed

 

- Head unit randomly shuts off. This happens maybe once every 5-10,000 miles or so ... maybe less. Regardless, Ford replaced the head unit ... twice ... in efforts to fix the "problem." Said problem is easily fixed by pressing the power button on the head unit and radio or iPod play resumes without drama.

 

- Throttle body went out at 62,000 miles. Problem began to occur at about 50,000 miles but I didn't pursue it. Would have been covered under warranty if I had.

 

- Throttle body went out again at 105,000 miles (Ford has issues with throttle bodies for some reason. I know others with similar experience with Ford TB problems).

 

- I've had to replace 3 brake/tail lights (one at 70,000 miles, one at 105,000 miles, one at 107,000 miles), a center mount brake light, and a license plate light

 

- After replacing the brakes at 90,000 miles, the rear brakes have squeaked for the last 15,000 miles ... haven't complained to the shop that did the work yet

 

- At about 12,000 miles, had to replace a wiring harness for the ignition system after Rabbits chewed the wiring one night

 

- At about 55,000 miles, the bumper and foglight trim were cracked/lost when I hit a coyote at 65 mph (WTF Ford? Let's build some more durable cars!)

 

- Yet at about 80,000 miles, I hit a fox on the same corner at 80 mph and no damage! (Go figure).

 

- I've changed the oil 14 times (bullshit!)

 

- I'm on the 2nd pair of tires, and will need to replace those this fall

 

I can't think of anything else to needlessly bitch about