Thinking about opening it up...15B v. 1HZ

[crushers]

where do i get most of my info Mr Dougal?

real life experience. mine and the customers and the people i wheel with.

THAT is the difference between book knowledge and real life. this is not a dig or stalking or being a troll, this is what i base most of my posts on... experience.

now this being said, my experience is with Toyota. other manufacturers might be getting better fuel milage with their designs...

yes, Dougal, i have heard some outlandish claims for both IDI and DI... but the over all average is low to mid 20s for the DI and mid to high 20s for IDI. is it enough to care? not in my books but couple the lower fuel milage with the sensitive throttle (personal pet peeve) and, thus, i do not like the Toyota DI engines

but

i drive what ever is under the hood...

 

[lynchmob]

Given that the other engines (3B vs 13BT etc) were never fitted to the same vehicles I'm wondering how the comparison was made.

I dont know the fuel usage comparison, but the 3B and 13BT were offered in the 70 series and also in Dyna.

2H and 12HT were offered in the same vehicle - 60 series and Coaster.

Maybe old literature states what the estimated figures were.

 

[Dougal]

where do i get most of my info Mr Dougal?

real life experience. mine and the customers and the people i wheel with.

THAT is the difference between book knowledge and real life. this is not a dig or stalking or being a troll, this is what i base most of my posts on... experience.

now this being said, my experience is with Toyota. other manufacturers might be getting better fuel milage with their designs...

yes, Dougal, i have heard some outlandish claims for both IDI and DI... but the over all average is low to mid 20s for the DI and mid to high 20s for IDI. is it enough to care? not in my books but couple the lower fuel milage with the sensitive throttle (personal pet peeve) and, thus, i do not like the Toyota DI engines

but

i drive what ever is under the hood...

I was hoping you'd give a rundown of the vehicles the engines were fitted to.
Because the IDI and DI versions were often fitted to completely different vehicles, giving wildly different results.

We have a far bigger range of diesels here and the results are always the exact opposite of yours. DI always does better than IDI. Doesn't matter if you're talking generators, tractors, cars, 4wds or trucks.

Once again, this is direct experience, why is yours so much different to everyone elses?

 

[Dougal]

I dont know the fuel usage comparison, but the 3B and 13BT were offered in the 70 series and also in Dyna.

2H and 12HT were offered in the same vehicle - 60 series and Coaster.

Maybe old literature states what the estimated figures were.

I'm pretty sure we only got the 13BT's, 1HZ and 1HD-FT in the 70 series. 3B's were old news by then.
We didn't get 13BT dynas, very few dynas are turbocharged here.

Got any figures on the 2H vs 12HT? I know people driving 2H's with aftermarket turbos but the few 12HT's I used to know of are long gone.

 

[crushers]

first, the 70 series never got the HDT FT.
next, 70 series recieved the 3B, 13BT, KZ, PZ, HZ
the 60 series got the 2H, 12HT for a direct comparision.
the 80 series got the 1HZ, HDT, HDFT etc for a direct comparison.
we do not have the ability to drive the newer rigs with the newer engines. but, then, the gent was asking about the 15B vs the 1HZ...

the 2H and the 12HT are the same as the other comparisons. 2H high 20s and the 12HT low to mid 20s.

now of course this is comparing a strong running IDI with a strong running DI. so a tired 3B will get poorer milage, similar to any tired engine...

 

[crushers]

also, Dougal, once again, it is not just my experience but a broad range of owners in Canada reporting these same figures.

seriously, unless you experience the milage personally then take book or web knowledge as a guideline... not fact.

also, you need to talk toyota here since i am sure other makes (as i stated before) can get different results.

 

[Dougal]

first, the 70 series never got the HDT FT.

Oh yes it did. It replaced the 1HZ years ago and was only discontinued when the D4D V8 arrived.
It offered better fuel economy than the 1HZ.

I haven't met anyone who regularly gets high 20's from a landcruiser. Closest is a 1HD-FTE which when babied on the open road can return almost 10km/l.
Roscoes figures are inline with what the majority get. 7-9 km/l.

The 1KZ to 1KD was another interesting example.
The same vehicle (current prado) went from using 11 litres of fuel per 100km to 9 simply by changing the engine from IDI to direct injection common rail.

 

[Coyote808]

I'd like to point out that the reason manufacturers are going the Direct Injection route with their diesels is NOT because of mileage. It is because it is MUCH MUCH harder to get an Indirect Injected Diesel to meet the current Emissions Standard for the EURO emissions and IMPOSSIBLE for US EPA Emissions with current technology for an IDI Diesel to even think of meeting them, let alone exceeding them as the Daimler AG BlueTec does in their 3.0L V6 and the Cummins 6.7L I6. Both of those engines use Direct Injection on a common rail with a special Urea treatment IIRC to make them the cleanest diesels around anywhere. And getting better fuel economy might be a side effect. Also, comparing fuel mileage from trucks in one climate vs. another climate is absolutely bonkers. Cold weather adversely effects any type of engine, PERIOD. SUPER BLARING ARABIAN DESERT adversely effects any type of engine. Basically, what I'm trying to say is Wayne's experiences are valid because he imports the bloody things, fixs them, wheels them, wheels with others who wheel them, so he's got the numbers under his belt. Yours may be from another area of the world, driven differently, and with different kinds of fuel, and may be true.
One last MAJOR point. Don't do a swap based on fuel consumption.

Think long and hard about it. Do you want to drive a diesel? Is there facilities for you or someone else to do the swap? Do you have the money to afford the swap? Do you have the time to spare doing the swap yourself, or can you do without the truck for a long period of time? Are the Power/Torque ratings sufficient for your vehicle? Where is peak power/torque at along the revline, where does it begin to drop off, and how does it drive in an actual vehicle that is similar to yours? These are just the beginnings of the questions you should be asking yourself when considering a swap. And please, don't take this as a troll/flame like post. It's just to bring things back into perspective when considering a swap. I know I've had to ask myself just these same questions as I'm fixing up my blown up 2F. And quite frankly, it makes more sense for me to just rebuild the 2F than do a full blown swap right now.

 

[crushers]

proof?

Oh yes it did. It replaced the 1HZ years ago and was only discontinued when the D4D V8 arrived.
.

 

[crushers]

good post

i have talked a number of blokes out of a diesel swap since you can buy a LOT of gas for the cost of the swap.
a 2F is CHEAP to rebuild and once it is done the milage is not unacceptable.

but a 1HZT is just as quick, powerful as the 2F with much better fuel milage and if you are planning on a lot of miles then it can make sense...

I'd like to point out that the reason manufacturers are going the Direct Injection route with their diesels is NOT because of mileage. It is because it is MUCH MUCH harder to get an Indirect Injected Diesel to meet the current Emissions Standard for the EURO emissions and IMPOSSIBLE for US EPA Emissions with current technology for an IDI Diesel to even think of meeting them, let alone exceeding them as the Daimler AG BlueTec does in their 3.0L V6 and the Cummins 6.7L I6. Both of those engines use Direct Injection on a common rail with a special Urea treatment IIRC to make them the cleanest diesels around anywhere. And getting better fuel economy might be a side effect. Also, comparing fuel mileage from trucks in one climate vs. another climate is absolutely bonkers. Cold weather adversely effects any type of engine, PERIOD. SUPER BLARING ARABIAN DESERT adversely effects any type of engine. Basically, what I'm trying to say is Wayne's experiences are valid because he imports the bloody things, fixs them, wheels them, wheels with others who wheel them, so he's got the numbers under his belt. Yours may be from another area of the world, driven differently, and with different kinds of fuel, and may be true.
One last MAJOR point. Don't do a swap based on fuel consumption.

Think long and hard about it. Do you want to drive a diesel? Is there facilities for you or someone else to do the swap? Do you have the money to afford the swap? Do you have the time to spare doing the swap yourself, or can you do without the truck for a long period of time? Are the Power/Torque ratings sufficient for your vehicle? Where is peak power/torque at along the revline, where does it begin to drop off, and how does it drive in an actual vehicle that is similar to yours? These are just the beginnings of the questions you should be asking yourself when considering a swap. And please, don't take this as a troll/flame like post. It's just to bring things back into perspective when considering a swap. I know I've had to ask myself just these same questions as I'm fixing up my blown up 2F. And quite frankly, it makes more sense for me to just rebuild the 2F than do a full blown swap right now.

 

[Volcano cruiser]

I'd like to point out that the reason manufacturers are going the Direct Injection route with their diesels is NOT because of mileage. It is because it is MUCH MUCH harder to get an Indirect Injected Diesel to meet the current Emissions Standard for the EURO emissions and IMPOSSIBLE for US EPA Emissions with current technology for an IDI Diesel to even think of meeting them, let alone exceeding them as the Daimler AG BlueTec does in their 3.0L V6 and the Cummins 6.7L I6. Both of those engines use Direct Injection on a common rail with a special Urea treatment IIRC to make them the cleanest diesels around anywhere. And getting better fuel economy might be a side effect. Also, comparing fuel mileage from trucks in one climate vs. another climate is absolutely bonkers. Cold weather adversely effects any type of engine, PERIOD. SUPER BLARING ARABIAN DESERT adversely effects any type of engine. Basically, what I'm trying to say is Wayne's experiences are valid because he imports the bloody things, fixs them, wheels them, wheels with others who wheel them, so he's got the numbers under his belt. Yours may be from another area of the world, driven differently, and with different kinds of fuel, and may be true.
One last MAJOR point. Don't do a swap based on fuel consumption.

Think long and hard about it. Do you want to drive a diesel? Is there facilities for you or someone else to do the swap? Do you have the money to afford the swap? Do you have the time to spare doing the swap yourself, or can you do without the truck for a long period of time? Are the Power/Torque ratings sufficient for your vehicle? Where is peak power/torque at along the revline, where does it begin to drop off, and how does it drive in an actual vehicle that is similar to yours? These are just the beginnings of the questions you should be asking yourself when considering a swap. And please, don't take this as a troll/flame like post. It's just to bring things back into perspective when considering a swap. I know I've had to ask myself just these same questions as I'm fixing up my blown up 2F. And quite frankly, it makes more sense for me to just rebuild the 2F than do a full blown swap right now.

Coyote,
Thanks. You make a very good point, engine swaps are not to be taken lightly. They are costly and can be lengthy undertakings no matter who does them. FYI for all, as some of you know from my posts in other threads, I am running the original 28 year old B engine. My guesstimate is that it has at least 400,000kms on the clock at the point of purchase last April (odometer was broken at time of purchase). I have wheeled with it and driven it, non turboed up and down the mountains here. It is painfully clear to me at this point that while plucky and hard working it can't take much more and certainly will not make the trip driving back up to the East Coast of the U.S. from Central America.

I have been thinking about a successor to the B engine for months, researching, asking questions here and riding with other cruiser owners here checking out how their engines are riding. I have visited all of the recognized cruiser mechanic shops here, gotten to know each of the shop owners and checked out their work up close first hand. My conclusion is that rebuilding this engine just doesn't make much sense, economic or otherwise. I love it's low end torque but I cry everytime I try to get up one of these mountain roads and I have to get in behind a long line of big rigs going 10-15mph so none of us blow our engines. I ran it really hard on one trip, overrevving it going up hill , trying to compensate by coasting downhill all to get back to work on time. While I made it it was clear that the old girl doesn't have too many more of those trips in her. So the idea is do the swap while she is still running decently before it becomes emergency surgery.

I'm lucky because I am working with Toyota certified in the U.S. mechanics who work almost exclusively on cruisers, love diesels and have done engine swaps. If I get the engine here and have all of the parts in hand the swap itself is not projected to take much more than two weeks and change. I'm planning on four just to be on the safe side.

good post

i have talked a number of blokes out of a diesel swap since you can buy a LOT of gas for the cost of the swap.
a 2F is CHEAP to rebuild and once it is done the milage is not unacceptable.

but a 1HZT is just as quick, powerful as the 2F with much better fuel milage and if you are planning on a lot of miles then it can make sense...

Wayne,
This is really interesting to hear as getting a reasonable high end out of my swap engine is a big goal. I'm planning on putting a lot of miles on it on the good highways in the U.S.
John

 

[crushers]

top end is not a problem with the 1HZ turbo.
if you are doing this swap then find a set of 3.7s and stick them into the diffs and a set of 33s.
if you also have the H55F then you will love this setup on the US highways...
if you want the best milage then keep it under 60 mph... you will have the power to pass (easily) if needed but also the milage to make you happy.

cheers and best luck in the build...

also find yourself a 60 series power steering box since the one you have will not work with this swap...

 

[Volcano cruiser]

Wayne,
Regardless of which engine I end up with I planned on grabbing a set of 3.7s. I will never pitch my 4.11s, just put them away nicely in case I decide in a year or two that I miss them. I actually haven't installed the P/S yet although I was about to go with the p/s box from a 95 Hilux, last year before IFS on the Central American versions. As best I can tell this year Hilux box equates to what is known in the U.S. as a minitruck set up. I saw in your writeup that you went with the 60 series setup and bolted that on first, setting the engine in around it. Will the hilux/mini truck box not work with the 1HZ swap? if so why not? It won't be that hard to round up the bits for a 60 series setup but the guys in El Sal already have everything to bolt the Hilux setup on if I want to go that way, it is their standard P/S mod for 40 series cruisers there.
Thanks,
John

 

[crushers]

the 1HZ starter and the factory/mini box mounts in the same location. i tried different configurations but none worked as smooth as the 60 series. i wanted a clean, practical steering setup and the 60 box worked the nicest.
it also gets rid of the center link, the arm from the box to the center link which tightens up the steering response and allows a bit tighter turning due to the extra allowable turning radius.

i have run the mini box and did so on the last fiberglass 40 i built, they work fine but not properly with the 1HZ. it is just too tight for my liking. personal preference is all..

 

[Volcano cruiser]

the 1HZ starter and the factory/mini box mounts in the same location. i tried different configurations but none worked as smooth as the 60 series. i wanted a clean, practical steering setup and the 60 box worked the nicest.
it also gets rid of the center link, the arm from the box to the center link which tightens up the steering response and allows a bit tighter turning due to the extra allowable turning radius.

i have run the mini box and did so on the last fiberglass 40 i built, they work fine but not properly with the 1HZ. it is just too tight for my liking. personal preference is all..

Gotcha. I can see how the ps box and starter trying to occupy the exact same space would put a crimp in my day. Thanks for the heads up. Also I do like the added benefit of reducing the number of links in the steering, tighter turning radius, as well as the reported added strength in the 60 setup. Great info. Thanks again.
John

 

[Dougal]

proof?

You want proof that an HDJ79 exists?

Can you not use google? There are pictures of them here on Mud.

 

[crushers]

well there you go, introduced in 2002... too bad my vin number data base only goes to 2000...

an Ozzy special, mark one up for Dougal.
<and an apology to Rosco in another thread>

 

[lshobie]

I'm with wayne on his figures about the fuel economy, although his 1HZ figures seem high he could probably pull it off with the gearing and tires he has set up. I am getting 600kms per 65 litres now with 4.30's and 285 75 16's, turbo, intercooled 15 lbs boost and keeping it at 90-100kms per hour. I had mine over fueled and just turned the fuel down last night - trying to lower the smoke coming out the pipe. I suspect I will get better mileage now.

I have heard that the guys with the new V8 are getting the same mileage than the 1HZ but it just has more torque.

Dougal, if you have owned the trucks that we have owned then you would realize the same mileage - unless the climate has something to do with it - but I warm my truck up here for 20 mins during the winter.

Louis

 

[KOOTENAY KRUZER]

I haven't met anyone who regularly gets high 20's from a landcruiser.

My '79 BJ40 with a 3B used to get 27 miles to the Imperial on a regular basis. 300,000km later with the injectors never have been serviced it is down to 22m/Imp.gal (at least it was before the odometer broke) with a stock (Can Spec) 1982 BJ42 drivetrain and BFG 33 x 12.50/15 MTs and the speedometer regeared to a 3% error.

 

[Dougal]

My '79 BJ40 with a 3B used to get 27 miles to the Imperial on a regular basis. 300,000km later with the injectors never have been serviced it is down to 22m/Imp.gal (at least it was before the odometer broke) with a stock (Can Spec) 1982 BJ42 drivetrain and BFG 33 x 12.50/15 MTs and the speedometer regeared to a 3% error.

When you say "on a regular basis", do you mean the occasional tank would be 27mpg or your long term average was 27mpg?

My 4wd ranges from 8.5 to 10.6 on individual tanks, but the long term average is 10km/l (a hair over 28mpg).

27mpg from a 40 is a good result, but we regularly see figures quoted here of up to 30mpg. Waynes claimed result of 28mpg while towing 3000lb is several leaps above your results.

Ishobies 600km from 65 litres (didn't mention if that's just the occasional tank or long term average) is about 26mpg. Again a long shot from 30 or 28 while towing 3000lb.
Turning your fuel down won't save fuel unless you're spending a large proportion of your time at full load. In which case turning down the fuel will make you drive slower which will save some.