best mpg Land Cruisers? (8 Viewers)

[crushers]

your missing the point, sensitive throttle issue.

i can shift a manual as nice as an auto as well but some engines really do work better with an auto behind them.

 

[jamie_scotland]

Sensitive throttle issue??!

Jamie

 

[Combat Chuck]

Personally, I just got tired of punching the throttle, and then hitting that gut-dropping lull when the motor is pounding like mad, but the torque converter hasn't locked up to transfer motion to the driveline.

Or the overheating and stress on the waterjacket, or bad seals pissing ATF all over the place, or the repair nightmare that is the slushbox. Or the yo-yo shifting while pulling a hill.
Heck, I just hated every auto I've had the misfortune of driving...
isn't this a different thread, though?

Also, Crushers is right, autos can shift without cutting into the throttle, so for turbocharged motors, it means a smooth power curve instead a minute throttle drops when the right foot has to ease up while the left foot does its thing.

To each his own, take 'em or leave 'em, but my opinion is that slushboxes and chevy motors alike are good for nothing but boat anchors.

 

[finderscuba]

To each his own, take 'em or leave 'em, but my opinion is that slushboxes and chevy motors alike are good for nothing but boat anchors.

Well said! I've never owned an auto, never will.

your missing the point, sensitive throttle issue.

I still don't get the "sensitive throttle" issue. You brought that up when I was first looking for a manual HDJ81. I've been driving one now for over 3 years and I've never experienced anything like what you describe. Sure, it shifts like a truck, but I would expect nothing less. I drive in a lot of stop-and-go traffic and it's still smooth and easy to drive. No bucking or chugging.

I respect your experience and history with these trucks, but I still don't understand the "sensitive throttle" issue.

 

[crushers]

first, the H151 is probably the worst tranny that Toyota introduced into their Land Cruiser line. shifts like s***. O/D is a joke. gear spacing is retarded.
the H55 was a tough, smooth shifting, well geared tranny with a weak 5th gear after 400K. why Toyota took a step backwards is beyond me. and the R series ... wow, now there is a true POS ...

how can you describe a sensitive throttle?

have you driven any other land cruiser engine?
the HDT is not as sensitive as the 13BT or the 12HT, they are a bitch in manual configuration off road or on rough roads. they can be litterally life threatening in certain siturations.
i have found the HDT manual to be uncomfortable in certain driving experiences so like you, each to their own. i won't run one.

if you are happy with yours then that is all that matters in the end.

 

[Dave 2000]

That's a lot of manual bashing! Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't ALL AUTOMATICS be smoother than the manual option? I am very good at driving a stick (as that is all I have even owned) and I would still say that an auto can shift smoother than me?

Don't be so hard on the 5 speeds, remember the rules of simplicity, at the end of the day a manual gives you options an auto never will. And that i will sacrifice many MPG for!

YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!

Don't get me started on the auto V manual debate, oh alright then.

Auto,

Slower, uses more fuel, engine cannot be pushed started, poor engine braking, cannot change from low to high range 'on the fly', heavier, harder to fault find, often fails with little or no warning, needs additional cooling/pipework, radiator has to be a certain type with cooler (more expensive).......oh I could go on (and often do).

regards

Dave

 

[Combat Chuck]

back on topic:
it stands to reason that fewer cylinders means less space to fill with fuel, but at the cost of the additional power.
I'm a firm believer in the benefits of an inline 6 motor, but were I building a rig that I wanted to sip fuel, deliver consistent power, and run at lower revs for hours, I would definitely shell out for a solid 4-banger diesel.

 

[crushers]

3B H55F

 

[Dave 2000]

back on topic:
it stands to reason that fewer cylinders means less space to fill with fuel, but at the cost of the additional power.
I'm a firm believer in the benefits of an inline 6 motor, but were I building a rig that I wanted to sip fuel, deliver consistent power, and run at lower revs for hours, I would definitely shell out for a solid 4-banger diesel.

This is not quite true. It is all about how efficient an engine is, I often get similar mileage as friends well cared for TD5 Discovery, his engine is smaller in capacity and cylinders but his engine although more modern has to work harder to pull his car around.

As technology moves ever onwards we will see better use of the fuel that is put in to the engine hence vehicles with newer and better electronic controls are normally easier on consumption however, that advantage can be wiped out in an instant with the failure of a single electronic component. From the moment the tow truck is called to get you to the garage and then the cost of diagnostics (not always correct ) and then the cost of the replacement part plus fitting, add in the possiblity of taxi/car hire ect means I will be hanging on to my non electronic 80 for as long as I can!

regards

Dave

 

[Combat Chuck]

3B H55F

My thoughts exactly.
that's a drivetrain that takes extreme neglect to kill.

A 22R with an RV cam comes close to that combination of durability, simplicity, and economy, but will still be revving too high for its own good.

and it's also not a diesel, and only saw a limited run in certain 70-series trucks.

 

[Dougal]

This is not quite true. It is all about how efficient an engine is, I often get similar mileage as friends well cared for TD5 Discovery, his engine is smaller in capacity and cylinders but his engine although more modern has to work harder to pull his car around.

As technology moves ever onwards we will see better use of the fuel that is put in to the engine hence vehicles with newer and better electronic controls are normally easier on consumption however, that advantage can be wiped out in an instant with the failure of a single electronic component. From the moment the tow truck is called to get you to the garage and then the cost of diagnostics (not always correct ) and then the cost of the replacement part plus fitting, add in the possiblity of taxi/car hire ect means I will be hanging on to my non electronic 80 for as long as I can!

regards

Dave

All modern tdi engines have similar peak efficiency, like within 5%. From there how they chose to meet emissions targets can make about 20% difference.
From there gearing and driving style is it.

But that's at peak efficiency, which for a diesel is basically 95% load at the rpm for max torque. At lower loads things vary a lot.
The more cylinders you've got, the more internal friction you've got and the more surface area for heat loss to the cooling jacket. No if, buts or maybes.
4 cyls win for fuel economy in the engine sizes that interest us. Which is why all light trucks use big 4 cyls over 6 cyls of the same capacity.

 

[Combat Chuck]

All modern tdi engines have similar peak efficiency, like within 5%. From there how they chose to meet emissions targets can make about 20% difference.
From there gearing and driving style is it.

But that's at peak efficiency, which for a diesel is basically 95% load at the rpm for max torque. At lower loads things vary a lot.
The more cylinders you've got, the more internal friction you've got. No if, buts or maybes.
4 cyls win for fuel economy. Which is why all light trucks use big 4 cyls over 6 cyls of the same capacity.

Well said.

 

[crushers]

the old 3B returned (in the land cruiser) on average 10L/100
one wire run, no elec needed although the engineers did add the EDIC and Super glow but you could run them off a cable and a push button.

i have yet to see a land cruiser (E) engine match the durability, fuel economy and ease of repair, when you add all the sensors and how fast Toyota is making these parts obsolete, there is no comparrison.

Toyota dropped the ball when it went (E) controlled engines.

...

AFAIAC.

 

[northernrighty]

first, the H151 is probably the worst tranny that Toyota introduced into their Land Cruiser line. shifts like ****. O/D is a joke. gear spacing is retarded.
the H55 was a tough, smooth shifting, well geared tranny with a weak 5th gear after 400K. why Toyota took a step backwards is beyond me. and the R series ... wow, now there is a true POS ...

how can you describe a sensitive throttle?

have you driven any other land cruiser engine?
the HDT is not as sensitive as the 13BT or the 12HT, they are a ***** in manual configuration off road or on rough roads. they can be litterally life threatening in certain siturations.
i have found the HDT manual to be uncomfortable in certain driving experiences so like you, each to their own. i won't run one.

if you are happy with yours then that is all that matters in the end.

LIFE THREATING? I do agree that the ratios of my h151 are a little off BUT IT IS THE BEST manual tranny I have ever towed with! Rarely have to down shift, and 1st is low enough for even a BIG load. There are always pros and cons but at the end of the day I CAN BUMP START my rig in the bush, which is priceless to me in Northern Ontario.

 

[Dave 2000]

All modern tdi engines have similar peak efficiency, like within 5%. From there how they chose to meet emissions targets can make about 20% difference.
From there gearing and driving style is it.

But that's at peak efficiency, which for a diesel is basically 95% load at the rpm for max torque. At lower loads things vary a lot.
The more cylinders you've got, the more internal friction you've got and the more surface area for heat loss to the cooling jacket. No if, buts or maybes.
4 cyls win for fuel economy in the engine sizes that interest us. Which is why all light trucks use big 4 cyls over 6 cyls of the same capacity.

I think I said exactly that without spending an hour on Google

Without getting out the popcorn it is true you can throw figures and specs all day long and we all know that those figures have altered (or can be made to alter) so you just cannot compare apples with apples when there are so many variables and the right foot is one of the biggest variable known to man.

Your no if's buts ect about internal friction are (IMHO ) also a little out of touch these days. A 4 cylinder engine of say 20 years ago would have had at least and perhaps more friction as a modern six cylinder engine of today, this would be due to different machining methods/better tolerance control, low pressure piston rings along with thinner contact areas again = less friction. Modern oils lubricate better so again less friction. Lets us go to heat loss to the water jacket in the modern diesel, nowadays the modern diesel is so efficient there is virtually NO heat loss, in fact manufacturers are fitting warm air (eberspacher ect) heaters to vehicles as there is no longer sufficient heat loss to the water jacket to warm the heater matrix up, witness the Ford Endura DE engine, it can run for a limited time WITHOUT water.

regards

Dave

 

[crushers]

life threatening, yes.
picture this, you are in the mountains crawling up your favorite trail that has rock steps at the top. it is a couple hundred feet back down, all you can see is blue sky over your hood. now, you want to keep the rpms down as low as reasonably possible to keep from breaking traction.
you try to gently give it some throttle and the engine does its "sensitive throttle" issue and the tires break loose ... getting the idea?
i have had this experience with a 13BT, i have heard of it happening with a 12HT from a gent i trust so ANY engine with a sensitive throttle is "out" in my books.

if all you do with your truck is run the bitchmen then a sensitive throttle is more of an incovience than anything else. I wheel my trucks, not everyone does.

if you feel the H151 is a smoother tranny than the old H55 then you were driving a POS neglected, abuse H55.

LIFE THREATING? I do agree that the ratios of my h151 are a little off BUT IT IS THE BEST manual tranny I have ever towed with! Rarely have to down shift, and 1st is low enough for even a BIG load. There are always pros and cons but at the end of the day I CAN BUMP START my rig in the bush, which is priceless to me in Northern Ontario.

 

[hedydd]

YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!

Don't get me started on the auto V manual debate, oh alright then.

Auto,

Slower, uses more fuel, engine cannot be pushed started, poor engine braking, cannot change from low to high range 'on the fly', heavier, harder to fault find, often fails with little or no warning, needs additional cooling/pipework, radiator has to be a certain type with cooler (more expensive).......oh I could go on (and often do).

regards

Dave

Slower? Yes, a bit, due to converter losses.

Poor engine braking? Possibly, but even though I live in a hilly area I am very light on my brakes despite having several automatic [and several manual] cars including the 100 series. The modern automatics do shift down on downgrades and provide good engine braking, just about as good as a manual transmission.

Shifting range on the fly? Never had any problem doing so with the Toyota, Mercedes or Range Rover and the two last European machines I have owned have had electric transfer shifting. No problem.

Who cares about the plumbing as long as it is reliable? Not me.

Should mention that I have just ordered another new car. A Nissan. With manual gearbox.

 

[Dave 2000]

Should mention that I have just ordered another new car. A Nissan. With manual gearbox.

Oh lord he has seen the light!

regards

Dave

 

[hedydd]

Oh lord he has seen the light!

regards

Dave

I've already got a 2.7 diesel Nissan TerranoII manual on the yard.

The new one is a .......... don't laugh............ a.........

No! Seriously. Don't laugh.................... a................

.
.
.
.
.
.
Nissan.......................


J...............

You promise not to laugh?


.
.
.
.
.
Nissan Juke. Front wheel drive 1.5 litre diesel Tekna specification. Should do at least 50mpg Imperial.
This might take some of the milage load off the Land Cruiser and I hope that it will cover about 18,000 miles per year.
If all this mileage replaced the LC then 1921 litres approximately would be saved. The monetary saving would be £2690UK.
But I still expect the LC to do about 7000 miles per year due to family requirements and the need for 4wd and towing. We shall see.

 

[jamie_scotland]

But the depreciation on the Juke will cost?!

And I'm sorry I've got to laugh!

Jamie