Touareg vs LC

[EarthX]

Geez, just come on in and insult me why don't ya! Maybe you should follow your own advice about being civilized.

Thanks,

I hope you kidding. I didnt mean it to be mean. Sorry about that

 

[EarthX]

Also, I guess we have to take each aplication indiviually. Like i said, mine works aswsome...no heat...no problems...huge power gain.....and Ive already put about 40,000 miles on her after SPing. And I have all stock cooling system too.....

 

[hoser]

Turbos are simply more efficient than SC's because they use usually wasted exhaust gas rather than rob the engine itself. Yes, turbos have increased backpressure but the intake pressure makes up for that. Most Turbos will produce as much horsepower at 9psi as an SC at 11psi. Not only is the peak power greater, the low-end torque is greater. At 6k rpm, I would think that it would take more than 5hp to turn an average supercharger.

In any case, Forced induction rocks whether SC or Turbo.

 

[dclee]

The reason (I think) that many racing cars use turbos is because of the adjustability of them........SCs seem to be a bit less adjustible/tuneable...I may be wrong. But with the right set up, a turbo can make gobs of power.

Actually, you're partly right. A supercharger, because it is dependant on crank RPMs, can at most get about 15K revolutions, depending on the engine. IOW, it's limited by engine speed. A turbo has no such limitation and can get upwards of 150,000 RPMs on the turbine, turning out somewhere upwards of 25 PSI of boost!!!

Check out those Sauber Mercedes I mentioned earlier. They used twin KKK turbos (I know, I didn't name the company) to turn out 720 bhp on a relatively small 5.0 liter 8-cylinder engine. And that was in 1989! Cool stuff. Maybe we should start another thread...

 

[EarthX]

Turbos are simply more efficient than SC's because they use usually wasted exhaust gas rather than rob the engine itself. Yes, turbos have increased backpressure but the intake pressure makes up for that. Most Turbos will produce as much horsepower at 9psi as an SC at 11psi. Not only is the peak power greater, the low-end torque is greater. At 6k rpm, I would think that it would take more than 5hp to turn an average supercharger.

In any case, Forced induction rocks whether SC or Turbo.

First of all........Low-end torque is not greater ! That it where turbos have tons of lag. We all know that....Second, I doubt that Whipple would lie about there stats...a company like that knows what they are talking about. And you are right..."Forced induction rocks whether SC or Turbo".....one thing I like about my SP is that even in the rare case it seizes, I can just take the belt off, throw the original belt one(I carry it in the car) and drive it like normal...............can you run a car with a busted turbo??

 

[hoser]

Maybe we should start another thread...

Haha, yeah but I'm sure there are those that are glad this thread is taking a turn even though the SC vs Turbo argument has been beaten to death.

 

[EarthX]

Actually, you're partly right. A supercharger, because it is dependant on crank RPMs, can at most get about 15K revolutions, depending on the engine. IOW, it's limited by engine speed. A turbo has no such limitation and can get upwards of 150,000 RPMs on the turbine, turning out somewhere upwards of 25 PSI of boost!!!

Check out those Sauber Mercedes I mentioned earlier. They used twin KKK turbos (I know, I didn't name the company) to turn out 720 bhp on a relatively small 5.0 liter 8-cylinder engine. And that was in 1989! Cool stuff. Maybe we should start another thread...

A new thread would be nice! Can they move our posts to a new thread?

No doubt turbos can make tons of power. But to what most of us will do.........bolting on a SP or Turbo.....you will most likely make more power with the SC. The turbo just has more potential.
Ill have to go check out that Mercedes later.

 

[hoser]

First of all........Low-end torque is not greater ! That it where turbos have tons of lag. We all know that....Second, I doubt that Whipple would lie about there stats...a company like that knows what they are talking about. And you are right..."Forced induction rocks whether SC or Turbo".....one thing I like about my SP is that even in the rare case it seizes, I can just take the belt off, throw the original belt one(I carry it in the car) and drive it like normal...............can you run a car with a busted turbo??

An SC's boost level is rpm related. At 1500 rpm, SC's make very little boost whereas turbos depend on load. Flooring an engine at 1500 make for a ton of load. If a turbo is seized, it can still run.

If the bearings are leaking, then it cannot run without losing lots of oil. I agree, SC's are more reliable and less comlex. Just carry an extra belt.

 

[firetruck41]

First of all........Low-end torque is not greater ! That it where turbos have tons of lag. We all know that....Second, I doubt that Whipple would lie about there stats..

I have not been fortunate enough to drive a turboed or SCed LC,but from many of the posts I have read here on MUD, some from very credible members, your assumption that "turbos have tons of lag", are in doubt. Secondly, I am sure Whipple will do what it has to, to sell it's product, probably by emphasizing it's positive attributes and minimizing it's negative attributes, I prefer "third party" evaluations when available.
Most of all, I wish I had a Turbo or SC Land Cruiser!

 

[EarthX]

I have not been fortunate enough to drive a turboed or SCed LC,but from many of the posts I have read here on MUD, some from very credible members, your assumption that "turbos have tons of lag", are in doubt. Secondly, I am sure Whipple will do what it has to, to sell it's product, probably by emphasizing it's positive attributes and minimizing it's negative attributes, I prefer "third party" evaluations when available.
Most of all, I wish I had a Turbo or SC Land Cruiser!

Well maybe I went over board when I said "they have tons of lag" but never the less, they do have lag. And just like you, I prefer "third party" evaluations.....and for SCs my "third party" is myself and I do have many friends with turbos and have driven them..........I guess ultimately it just comes down to personal preference.

 

[Trollhole]

changed post

 

[Jukelemon]

Moderator????

 

[bulldog-yota]

This thread is funny. G Merc vs Toyota LC. Let me stir the pot some more

So lets see we are talking about a number of topics:
- Frame strength
- Crawl ratio
- Flex
- Tires

I dont have a pic of the LC100, but I sure it will be more beefy that my 4R. Here is the best pic I could get of the 4R frame.

4R 9 welded cross members, G has 6?? Both are fully boxed, and guess what that is not all of the equation. What is the size of the frame rails, and how far are they apart for each? I can get it for the 4R Thai measure it for the G. What is the wheelbase of each and track? WIth this we can at least get close to the comaprison of the torsional rigidity of each frame. The Gs frame looks very narrow to me, but lets get hard numbers and then we compare.

Crawl ratio. What is the gear ratios of the G?? I can get the ones for the 4Runner and I think we can easily get the ones for the 100 and then compare.

Flex is important not only for traction, but more so for stability while on the trail. That is why guys like Slee building suspension kits for the 80 go to great lenghts to improve flex. WIth 8 inches of suspension travel the G is in the same league as my 4Runners IFS and far worse than my rear at 13+ inches stock. I'm sure the 80 or 100 will beat the 4Runner. So this is no contest.

Tires stock they all come with iffy tires stock
80 - 275/70/16 (5xxxlb)
100 (old) - 275/65/17 (5400lb)
100 (new) - 275/60/18
G - 265/60/18 (only one listed with "high perfromance tires") (5500lb)
4R - 265/65/17 (4500lb)

So all the LCs have bigger tires by about an inch and a little wider than the G and the 4R about the same size stock. All the Toyotas have more sidewall stock than the G. Add to the fact that the G weighs more than the 80 and 4R Again no contest, especially with the 100 and 80. That is also the problem with the Touareg, carrying 5500lbs on 18s wheels with no sidewall does not inspire a lot of confidence. The new 100s with 18 wheels are bad but no close to the LR, VW and G in this at all. No point in having all the power, traction controlas and lockers in the world if the tires can't put it down on the surface. In this department Toyota is still ahead of most of the competition.

Oh and lastly how much weight can the G carry compared to the 4R? I wont even ask for the 100. Not much fun if you can't take your gear with. The 4R is a bit weak in this area, but I believe the G will be even weaker. What is the rating for the G? I believe it is like 1300lb where the 4R is 1450.

The G is nice having lockers and all, but then they hamstrung it with weak tires and even worse flex. Same goes for VW. AT least LR has solved the flex issue with the LR3 and RR. None of the new vehicles will stock go were you truly need to be fully locked, maybe that is why Toyota dropped the lockers on the LCs and decided TRAC is good enough. If you are going to go places with any of them stock where you need to be fully locked, you will find half the vehicle left behind, start with running boards (mine was sufficiently bend before I got sliders). If you going to mod it to go places where you need to be fully locked you might as well get lockers at that point

Let me put it this way. I have seen plenty of Toys (yes even LCs) and Jeeps on the Rubicon even a few LRs, I have yet to see any Gs or Touaregs or Cayenne's.

 

[Thai]

Bulldog...why do you want to stir the pot?? Great, now i have to debate G vs. 4runner too. Your assumptions are pretty funny nonetheless.

bulldog, i will PM you. We can discuss this offline. If anyone wants to join, please PM me...i can set up something on my forum.

Thai.

 

[macneill]

I think I finally found a reason to use the "ignore" option.

 

[EarthX]

Bulldog...why do you want to stir the pot?? Great, now i have to debate G vs. 4runner too.

bulldog, i will PM you. We can discuss this offline. If anyone wants to join, please PM me...i can set up something on my forum.

Thai.

Is this not one of the reasons we are on this forum? SO we can discuss things like this? If you don’t like it, don’t look it at. No one is forcing you to look at any one thread

 

[DBS311]

Sorry those calculations won't give you a range for the torsional rigidity of a frame. There is more to it than the number of crossmembers, size of frame rails, how far apart they are, etc. And as for why you don't see G-Wagens on the Rubicon, I can give you about 75,000 reasons.

 

[bulldog-yota]

Bulldog...why do you want to stir the pot?? Great, now i have to debate G vs. 4runner too.

bulldog, i will PM you. We can discuss this offline. If anyone wants to join, please PM me...i can set up something on my forum.

Thai.

Let's not clutter up the tech sections, why dont we move it to chit-chat and discuss there. That way it is off the main forum and doesn't bore people to death

So either a mod can move it there or close this thread and you can start a new thread in chit-chat.

 

[Trollhole]

I can agree with some of the thing Thai is saying it's just to bad he is only here to stir us up. Just like he did on the H2 forum. He only want to talk about how great his G is. Who cares this is a toyota forum last time I checked.

Sorry Thai good tech bad intentions.

 

[VZLAFZJ80]

I am not trying to argue with you, just better understand your opinion. I am looking to purchase a new vehicle at the end of the year and the G-Class is a model I am considering.

I know MB is looking into replacing the G-wagon with a new model sometime soon, don’t know how soon. But If I were you I would look into this before making a decision and buying a 90K+ vehicle.