Hi John, I have owned both these vehicles and fuel economy both city/country are very similar 10.8L per 100k's. The difference is hook the boat up and the troopy/V8 uses less than the harder working in-line 4.
Very well put together explanation. However, the public needs to remember the 70 series vehicles are built for a specific purpose. They are a completely different vehicle compared to Hilux, Prado, Ranger, Triton, Patrol, etc. The 70 series is designed mostly for durability and in standard form are capable of twice the work and twice the mileage of smaller vehicles. Hence they are most popular with military, mines, farming, and remote overland travel. You will rarely see these engines undergo a major overhaul under 500,000 + kms. Yes they are underpowered, slow, less efficient and expensive but they will last longer and are not designed for day to day urban use. The small 4 cylinder diesels producing the same if not more power comes with compromise. In standard form, they will run 2 to 3 times more boost pressure to get the same output, 70 series around 8psi, and Hilux/Prado around 20psi or more. At 14psi, you effectively double the engine capacity. With these engines highly strung, they are not as durable and correct maintenance is more critical. I have seen late model 4 cylinder diesels let go anywhere from 120,000 to 250,000kms More turbo failures than internal component failure but they are more susceptible than the larger underpowered V8.
Interesting video, John, decent explanation... Unfortunately, the one thing you neglected to explain was that the V8 in the troopy is deliberately detuned by Toyota, to maximize it's reliability and overall lifespan. Sure, you can juice a little motor up to within an inch of it's life, get a similar performance, but it'll never replace a motor designed for ultimate reliability in the bush, where your very life might depend on it. Don't take it personally, but this is a really common issue with city people, who just compare numbers on a whiteboard, without considering the kind of isolated and rugged environment these vehicles are designed for.
John, I absolutely love your clear yet detailed explanation of the beer garden physics of fuel efficiency. You didn’t explore the topic, but presumably a more effective turbo on the Troopy would indeed allow it to be more fuel efficient. A video on that subject would no doubt be very enlightening.
From experience on working on both engines over many years, I have a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that the 4.5L 1VD-FTV in the troop carrier and other Toyota models has a much greater life expectancy, or, time before overhaul, than the 4 cylinder turbo diesel 1KD-FTV/2KD-FTV in well maintained scenarios. Whether that balances out the extra fuel expenses over the lifetime of the V8 turbo diesel engine, I am not so sure.
@@mwat22 Yeah, having one less Turbo but the same sized sump means the Oil doesn't have to work as hard. Also the cooling jacket is designed to deal with a twin turbo system.
@@SoulTouchMusic93 I think EE is still in that “being careful what he says” part of life, which John left behind a few years ago 😀 A collaboration on automotive engineering stuff would always be welcome though, both of them do great stuff 👍
Partly because of you insistence on a proper tow vehicle. I bought a Toyota Tundra 4.6l RWD truck to pull our 2400lb camper (in USA). Very happy I did that. Thank you!
During a trip to beat the big outdoors into submission last year (25,000km from WA to Cape York via Tassie and Birdsville), i had the TD42 beefed up with a larger ball bearing turbo, intetcooler and pump. Dyno said 140kw at the wheels through the 4 speed Nissan auto. Don't think I'll get any more ambitious given the losses mentioned, the TD42 must be approaching its sensible reliability limit. It's in a 2k3 GU Patrol wagon pulling a 1.7T camper usually under 90kmh. For those interested it's running an 11mm pump and 20psi max. And yes, lots of guages watching stuff.
Very informative. I had a F100 with 6l V8 petrol and although it was a thirsty beast it was a truck and the fuel consumption did not change wether it was fully loaded or empty, just the ability to accelerate and the relative speed capabilities varied. The troopy is an industrial vehicle and under load will out perform but the Prado has more creature comfort. Put a fully loaded trailer behind each one and the compare.
@@Jay-en7bw yeh but v6 should be a inline 6 better low end touque then v8 or v6 the reason trucks larger tractors run in lines not v engines and they last longer
Still just in the first quarter or so of this video but I have to say man I do love your beer garden lessons. The combustion 101 segment might seem basic as fuck to some and it is I guess but as a layman I appreciate your no fat on the bone explanation of things 👍 same thing applies for all of your videos and most definitely all the recent 4x4 themed ones. Cheers
Great to see these type of tech talk videos. I work for toyota as a mechanic and the 70 series 4.5L is a dinosaur in everyway but we still love it haha
I have found when towing heavy weights smaller engines use a lot more fuel because u can't lift your foot off the floor . Trucks running interstate that have a motor with less than 400hp and 62 tonnes will be running for an extra 2 hours between Sydney and Melbourne because they can't get up the hills at a decent rate
Great vid John, yes the Prado is more efficient, but if you remap a troopy you get much better economy, but you can also live in a troopy it is a different animal, I can go bush for a much longer time in my troopy the in my Prado I love both, thanks for your great simplicity of explaining the two options 👍
For all those in the beginnings of a complete mental breakdown at the demise of the V8 in the 200 series.., throw a bucket of cold water over yourself and have a think about the fact that a 15 year old 100 series with a 4.2 6 cylinder diesel with 350,000ks on the clock still sell for $40k
@@alansailing1387 I agree, I wasn't comparing the troopy to the Prado, more making a comment in regards to the current somber mood in regards to the demise of the V8 in the next landcruiser (300), and that the 1hdt 4.2 turbo diesel (inline 6) that was in the 80/100 series were, and still are, regarded as one of the best diesel engines ever put into a vehicle, and it didn't have 8 cylinders.
@@alansailing1387 my uncle just replaced his v8 in his 2014 troopy after 140k, blew a piston, my 2012 1kd prado still going strong at exactly the same kms, oh well
The V8 will use less fuel when towing or under heavy loads than a 4 cylinder, which is what they're designed to do. Not to mention the 4 cylinder will wear out faster. Get a Prado and tow 2.5 tones with it and then do that with the troopy. Then make another video with your findings. I'll share my results with you. I own a 79 series Landcruiser with this exact engine. On the highway i get 11 litres per 100 unloaded (not towing) and no headwind. When towing a ton of camper trailer it barely changes and goes up to 12 to 13 litres per 100kms. 3 years ago i had a brand new Hilux with the same engine as the Prado you're talking about (1GD). Unloaded on the highway the Hilux would use less fuel at around 10 litres per 100kms. Towing the same trailer it jumped up to 14 litres per 100. It used MORE fuel than my Landcruiser. And since fitting a Steinbauer power module to the Cruiser economy has improved even more as it boosts the turbo more getting more air into the engine along with more fuel. And that's only a very mild tune of 25% increase. The trick is you spend less time accelerating to get up to speed, so it uses less overall fuel. Yes, it's drinking more when the foot is down, but the foot spends less time being down. Cruising speed makes the biggest difference to a Landcruiser's fuel economy. And a lot of cars for that matter. Wind drag is massive as you pointed out. If i sit on 110km/h, it will use considerably more fuel. A much bigger difference than towing. Towing my camper trailer only uses 2 litres per 100kms more at any given speed. Driving at 110 with no trailer compared to 90km/h will make a bigger difference, more like 3 to 4 litres per 100kms. Show me a 4 cylinder 2.8 litre with 6 to 700,000kms on it. Then show me how many and how hard they've worked to get there. Plenty of 1VD-FTV V8's out there with that amount of genuine kms on them which i may point out have worked hard. Longevity is King and i STILL believe in the old saying," There's no replacement for displacement". Show me a Kenworth prime mover with a 2.8 litre 4 cylinder in it. It wouldn't even turn the wheels mate. A Kenworth cruising down the road with no trailer will use more fuel than a 4 cylinder. Now put 100 tones behind it and try again. Big engines do big work and small engines do small work. It's as simple as that.
this car (tlc-70-ser) is absolutely fantastic car. it's a practically almost ideal perfection. only 4-things are missing in this car. I would say very important things are missing. those things are: 1. unfortunately the engine in on timing belt instead of timing chain or would be even even better gear-set. 2. unfortunately not optional automatic transmission. 3. unfortunately not optional soft top / removable top/doors options. 4. unfortunately no panoramic roof option. that 4-things would make this car just unbelievably cool. other than that if you want to know which 2-cars are the very best in the world,.. as a most durable, reliable , long-lasting, low-maintenance and etc, that would be this tlc-70-ser. and Nissan patrol (super-safari. y61-model. btw is still in production to date like tlc-70-ser) (don't get confused with the modern last model patrol y62 model, this is different animal. super-safari is y61 model not y62.)... ..,./// as for fuels consumption for diesel 4.2 non-turbine, naturally aspirated engine on tlc-70-series the diesel consumption specifically on that engine is in the city-20-25-liters on 100km. and on the hwy is 10-15-liters per 100km. depending on driving habits and defending many other factories for both cases. but this is real life info. and one more thing: never!!!, never!! listen to official fuel-consumption numbers on any car . what car passport or computer fuel-consumption data saying on your dash screen. is always a huge lie. difference between the official and real life consumption numbers are just ridiculous. the difference can be even 200%-300% or even more which just unheard of lie.
If you put them both on a dyno you will see that the factory specs are bull... the v8 will make a lot more power real world also put a 3 ton trailer behind both and see which one has better fuel economy. The prado is designed to take kids to school, 70 series is designed to be worked hard all day everyday in demanding conditions
Did you listen to anything he said, or were you watching troopie and VB ads from the 80's? Dont get me wrong, I love a troopie, but it is not efficient, or technologically advanced.
I wonder why big trucks (The Kenworth type) have doubled in engine size and better than halved the fuel use over the past 25 years. If Toyota brought the V8 up to 21st century specs no one would buy anything else... my C6 Corvette (LS2) gets 8.5/100 on the highway at 110kph without trying and that’s old tech just it only weighs 1400kg is fairly aerodynamic... but I’m biased, I like the V8 rumble.
@@id10tcertified that’s basically perfect speed for that type of car though… And it is lighter and lower than these vehicles Your corvette takes 15l in the city
Dave should take a good long test drive in a 70 series with the V8 diesel (then buy the Prado). John's done an excellent analysis of the data, but drive it and you'll understand qualitatively what the science actually translates to. The 1VD-FTV V8 "feels" like eight cylinders all fighting each other like piglets at the tit. You don't have to do the maths to realise it's not a very efficient engine, you can hear and feel all the energy that is being wasted when you drive it. I was well into the swing of selling these trucks a few years ago when I got hold of a Japanese fire tender based on a 1991 70 series with the 1HZ straight six. It had done just 9000km and the smoothness of the 1HZ was a revelation. Equally eye-opening was that despite the naturally-aspirated 96kw/288nm of the old 4.2l and the fire tender being over 3 tonnes at the kerb, it certainly didn't feel any more gutless than the V8.
Had a v8 tipper with a chip bin, weighed 3t empty. The difference between the v8 and the i6 is night amd day, especially when towing 2.5T and carrying a load of mulch. Yeah the 6 is smooth but the v8 gets there in daylight
I am a loyal owner of pre-historic diesel powered Landcruisers and have been for the past 10+ years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I found this video very interesting, but what I got out of it is that the V8 is dead when compared side by side with the 2.8 inline 4 because that it does everything so much more efficiently??? Obviously the V8 has the cool factor and that V8 sound, which the 4 cylinder can't beat. If the 4 cylinder is so much better than the V8 then why do I predominately see the V8 and older diesel inline 6 Landcruisers when travelling the outback? I seriously don't think that I can name a single occasion when I was 500km from the nearest town and didn't see a Landcruiser being used out there. Surely there has to be something going for the V8? What about longevity or reliability? PS, when I mentioned the pre-historic, dinosaur era Landcruiser diesel engines, I was referring directly to the non-turbo 2H and the turbocharged 12HT engines found in the 60 series. I currently own an automatic 12HT which puts out 82kw at the wheels (originally 100kw at the crank in stock form) and I'm happy with the way it performs. My 2H and 12HT powered 60 series Landcruisers have literally taken me to every place in Australia that I have ever been. Do you think that the 2.8 inline 4 could possibly survive without a rebuild for 1,000,000km like many of these older engines have?
That’s some Julius Sumner Miller shit right there Cdog!!!! I like it.. I bet all that talk of force, power and acceleration gets the Ming moles worked into a right frenzy... keep it up..👍
In a time not long ago I was the proud owner of a vdj76 2010 LandCruiser wagon. Loved it went like a cut cat but I couldn't complain about the fuel consumption. On highway fuel consumption was 10.1 ltrs to 100 klms. And if I was towing my 1975 Viscount 18ft caravan ( without the combined shiter/dinning room) the fuel consumption was at 10.5 ltrs to 100 klms.
@@chrisjohnston5961 That doesn't square with my experience at all. We just did Adelaide -> Birdsville -> Simpson -> Mt Dare-> Adelaide in a 2020 GXL 76 series. 2 swags on the roof and supplies for a 3 week trip. On bitumen at 100 or 110 we were getting 14.6L/100. Through the desert we were getting 16.7L/100. Your 10.5L/100 towing doesn't seem remotely possible, even if your 76 is running an older 6 cylinder engine (I don't know that much about LandCruisers , and when the engines changed). You must have had a tail wind, and been running downhill to get 10's!!
my troopy uses 15L/100 with big tyres roof rack and loaded rear setup, id imagine any other 4x4 with the same load in it would use very similar. Not sure what the comparison is. It also gets those figures towing a 1t trailer almost every day and living in a hilly area.
Sure. With a turbo rebuild and two gasket jobs. Just like the 4.6L gasoline V8 in my 2011 Lexus has already had a gasket job before 100K miles versus the flawless running lower revving 4.3L in my 2004 which along with the 6 speed auto is commonly considered here in the States to be the best powertrain Toyota ever put in a vehicle sold in our market. At least Toyota uses a combo fuel injection system so you don’t need to do a carbon cleanout every 100K miles. That said, Toyota gets a lot of flack even here in the land of cheap fuel for its gas-guzzling powertrains. Still doesn’t mean I would trade my Toyota products for a stealership loving Land Rover or BMW.
Probably not, but for the same reason the v8 troopy won't either, and it's nothing to do with being "highly strung" as you so put it, but more the fact that the fuel systems under high pressure will literally erode themselves away before you ever get anywhere near that point. The v8 will last marginally longer though because while it may use 35% more fuel it is spread over 100% more fuel system (2 sets of 4 cylinder rails instead of 1). The days of 1 million km diesel engines ended with the introduction of common rail injection. I'm sure JC will comment on this however it is most unlikely that the v8 was designed by the same company to have a higher service life than the i4, and it is a design decision not just a matter whether the squeeze more power out of one than another. The auto maker sets the brief for the engineering team that they need x power and it has to last y period of time / distance travelled / work done.
I have the V8 and bet they will last the same amount of time. Modern engines are all the same. The 1HZ is a million km motor but it was built basic and it’s not common rail with electronic shit. But to the point. One wont last longer than the other with same maintenance.
@@mungbean84 replace the fuel rail then. The old Volvo 4cyl was one of the longest running in km engines ever, so I wouldn't assume just because an engine has 4 cyl it can't do high km. Trucks Get to 1m km regularly
Bravo John. I might have pursued mechanical engineering rather than fluid mechanics had you been instructing me (over 50 years ago!) in engineering school.
Being 79 owner your Spot on with original Toyota spec mapping. Strangely, when mapped to real world and 3” exhaust, you get twice the kw and torque return for no measurable difference in consumption and lower loss of energy via lower egt’s. Torque curve is all the way through rev range. Why Toyota torture us with this is a mystery yet I do not know ANY buyer of the v8 who has stayed with the original tune. I will say, on corrugated roads, at 80kmh, and even with wheel spin, I get as low as 12lt per 100. It’s fully 1/3 better than at 110k on highway when using it for what it’s built for..... funny that. Be very interested to see your figures if real Dyno tested vehicles (at wheel torque/power) after mods. Really enjoyed the video and thanks, keep up the awesome content!5 stars!!
I have heard that often more fuel is burnt to improve emissions output, stuff like lower burn temps for less NOx, I gather. I don't know any real facts, but it makes sense to me that the manufacturer has many points to consider in a tune, not just max power and max economy, which is generally the aim of aftermarket tunes. Just another tidbit of personal opinion and probable misinformation on the internet.
I think the main reason people go for the Troopys is reliability. I mean, there are plenty of more efficient 4WD's, that's just a fact. But if you're driving around in the middle of nowhere, breaking down is more than a bit inconvenient. The Troopys are reliable because they're simple. And they're also easy to get parts for.
@@Knowbody42 all the 4.5L V8's are common-rail too. And the 'easy to get parts' theory is rubbish. If you need anything more than an air, fuel or oil filter (which you should carry your own spares of anyway) whilst out in the bush, you're gonna be waiting for parts to be flown in no matter what brand of vehicle you drive. There are no car dealersships and parts departments in Birdsville or Bamaga, for example!
Great Video again John... Truck (Prime Movers/Tractors) manufacturer’s (usually) go into great detail to provide the correct size engine for Transporters. This is obviously important to provide the best fuel economy for the load and conditions required. I have heard there are many arguments with drivers wanting the biggest, most powerful engines - Vs the person paying the fuel bills 😜
But where is the point of diminishing returns; i.e. a gigantic engine simply guzzles fuel whether or not it's pulling a load. The key is sizing the engine to the max expected load it is expected to pull I would expect, no?
How long do you reckon a 2.8L 4 cylinder with that degree of stresses is going to last compared to a 4.5L V8. I never really liked the idea of a V8 however due to extortionate rego prices.
@@godfreypoon5148 mate I have a friend who rebuilds diesels for a living and the Ford ranger engines he does several a week. They don't last and the forums are full of sob stories about late model common rail diesels dead. I unfortunately owned a 2lte and they were almost impossible to keep alive. So yes time will tell.
Not sure I’d use bore area for friction? Piston ring circumference (length of contact area) multiplied by travel (stroke) seems more logical and still ignores all the crank bearings.
It would have been good to show a Hp & torque map for each engine overlayed together. That way we are not looking just a peek numbers. Still a great video.
One thing you didn't discus was the state of tune in both engines. The Prado is a soccer moms car with a higher state of tune than the V8. The troopy is designed to run around mine sites and so runs a lesser state of tune. Bring the tune up higher and the fuel economy is better and the power is greatly increased. I am talking here of a slight remap and not a silly tune. If the troopy had more power standard then they would be rolling them over regularly.
Hey John, mate I love your videos. The LandCruiser 200 - the vehicle of choice to beat the outback into submission. There is a lot of talk about transmission remaps and lock up kits for the 200 series. Can you do a beer garden discussion on why or why not you would consider doing the remap and lock up kit?
Exactly. My 2017 hilux did exactly that. I have a 2020 model troopy and have absolutely no issues with the fuel consumption and that’s because I don’t drive it like I stole it
Just being picky I know, but on your comparo page with the motors, (approx 20:41 mins) you had kw twice instead of NM on the second value for the Troopy and Prado.
Depends if you want to pull a trailer. The V8 can outwork the turbo 4 under the table. Cold start enrichment: The 4 will warm up a quick. My 1993 Ford Crown Victoria used to burn about 25L/100km during cold start enrichment. 8-9L/100km hot and running city or hwy. Rated: 14.2L/100km city 8.6km/100 hwy
Toyota Japan must have heard you, John! Rumours are rife that the 70 Series will be available with the 1GD 2.8 4 cylinder motor and 6 speed auto. At least for the 76 Series wagon in Japan anyway. The 1VD motor in the 70 Series is deliberately detuned simply to be matched to the maximum torque handling characteristics of the 5 speed manual gearbox. Just putting a tune on the V8 in the 70 Series will result in the factory clutch slipping soon after.
18:00 - Piston ring area - The rings are only in contact with the circumference of the cylinders, not the area of them. Sorry if this has been noted by others first!
I'd like to see the cylinder pressures comparison. And as John noted the v8 should make those power numbers of 200kw and 680nm and they do as soon as you tune them. But they can't sell them like that because that would make the 200 series at 100k to 135k look ridiculous. That's why the base models have either a smaller engine or 1 turbo less, or are detuned. Imagine paying 90k for a prado Kakadu model it couldn't pull the skin off a custard.
I hired a Toyota Prado diesel and did solely highway driving. It was a 'free' upgrade. ADR81 says the car burns 7l/100km, but the dashboard stated 9.8 all the way. Sure enough when I refueled at Uluru at $2.10/l, the car had chewed 10l per 100km. You can imagine how delighted I was. Something is seriously wrong with the test.
Just going to say, this was actually very educational and entertaining for myself and was thinking very similar regards instead of Prado, was MU-X vs 76 series LandCruiser
Awesome explanation 👍Toyota should definitely have an upgraded version of the troop carrier and 79 utes with the 200 series driveline on offer, with 6 speed auto and 200kw/700nm . You can build it aftermarket but it’s probably around $30k plus, so why not offer it as say a $15k option, it’s just a few bolt on mods surely there is still room for profit and people can get what they want??
makes not real sense both for toyota and for the user. Yes the 200 series driveline is more efficent. BUT mostly becaus it produces a lot more power with the same deplacement. The 200 series is a luxury vehicle were you want an impressive performance. The 70 series is work horse were you want enough power.
Why does no one ever talk about power/torque curves? It’s not great looking at the maximum figures. A Troopy is designed for a lot of weight and longevity hence the v8. A Prado is an awful towing vehicle and they end up using the same fuel when towing but the v8 does it easier. The aerodynamics are so different, especially with the larger diameter tyres and near vertical windscreen. Torque means a lot when thinking about what these two vehicles are used for.
Love it, I’ve got near two toolboxes full of old spanners that look like that, most were handed down from my granddad who was born in 1899: I’ve got tools from him and an old guy (RIP) who lived across the road that I’ve no clue about: every now and then something I watch on RUclips will have something the same or similar... damn they worked hard back then.
Troopy owner here 🖐️ You covered a lot of good ground there but missed the single most important factor that effects thermal efficiency - that is, the combustion chamber surface area to cylinder displacement volume ratio. That directly affects how much heat energy is lost through the walls of the combustion chamber as a proportion of its capacity. This is why 4 cylinder motors always return better consumption than a similar capacity motors with more cylinders, it's why bigger engines are more efficient than smaller engines of otherwise similar design. It's how the ship engines get their 67% thermal efficiency. Although friction is higher, I would disagree it's the main factor in engine efficiency. Toyota did with the 70 series what they've always done when they want reliability, they took a large engine and detuned it so that it's effectively allways in limp mode, they use a drastically larger safety margin on stressed components than they use on the smaller engines, this is why they last so long. It is evidenced by the fact that the torque curve on the 1VDFTE engine is pretty much dead flat, when we all know that a graph of the pumping efficiency (the key defining measure that limits engine output) over engine speed would definitely not be flat. I believe comparing peak power output is not a useful measure of comparison when you have anything other than an infinitely variable transmission to direct that peak power to the ground, the average power over the used rev range when mowing through gears would be a more direct comparison, although a bit complicated to measure.
You make an interesting point but I have doubts about the 67% thermal efficiency figure. I'm far from being a thermodynamics - or engine - specialist but I'm only aware of 55% as the best efficiency ever achieved by a diesel engine.
@@frogzie you're probably right, I vaguely recall the efficiency of the biggest ship every built being quoted at 67%. Could well be wrong! My point is more that the thermal efficiency goes up drastically as the combustion chamber surface area to capacity ratio goes down.
Here in the US the value of reliability often outweighs the cost of fuel. Toyotas are more commonly known to last hundreds of thousands of miles without catastrophic failure or excessively expensive repairs whereas many other cars and light trucks are pretty much through at a bit over 100,000 miles and sometimes even less. I'm sure that in some parts of the world fuel prices would more heavily influence the purchase decision. But overall, this has been an interesting beer garden math exercise.
@@Robert-cu9bm No diesel models..all petrol. US enthusiasts who know what they are missing out on want a good diesel...the power brokers won't allow them to be imported...would destroy the US domestic pick-up market sales.
@@teenaramsay2469 America has some of the strictest emission laws. The diesels don't pass it. The only reason the truck can get away with it, is because they're body on frame and classed as commercial so don't have the same emissions laws.
@@jasonfields2793 Yup, no diesels here and Toyota uses different names in the US. Still, my point being that here many people might consider a vehicle with a track record of reliability over something with better fuel economy.
G’day John thank you for your excellent series of informative videos. We are the owners of a 2010 V8 Troopy. We find it to be a most suitable vehicle for long touring. However any seed over about 90km ph results in a major drop in economy. A word loosely used. 90 gives us 14/100 110 gives us 16/100. Now we do have full length roof rack the rest is standard. We have 240,000 km up. Any suggestions that can help improve economy. Regards Sue and Paul.
The V8 Troopy is an absolute rocket ship compared to the old 6 cylinder non-turbo diesel Troopy, which I think was about 70kw. You feel like Peter Brock in the V8, after pottering around in the 6.
Is still very, very slow compared to any of the current 4 cylinder turbo diesels unless you take it to a tuner to unlock the power (and loose the engine and driveline warranty in the process) Great for mining and farms.
@@Danger_mouse well.. the old Hilux was doing 0-100 in 12.7 and the Troopy about 14.7, so if those 2 seconds mean "very very slow compared to".. i guess
You can still buy a new inline 6 cylinder troopy at Toyota in Papua New Guinea. 70 series are the only vehicles that don’t shake to pieces on the gravel roads.
Hi John. wonderful video and very enlightening. My theory is that the longevity of the 4.5L V8 Troopy is going to greatly exceed that of the 4Cyl Prado Engine because a big engine is working very lightly to achieve the tasks asked of it compared with the small 4cy Prado engine. 1. Would this be a fair claim? 2. What is the difference in turbo charger boost of 4.5 V8 vs 2.8 4cyl?
My 2019 Troopy is the most economical 4wd I've owned. Gets 10L/100k around town and 15L/100k towing a caravan. Skinny tyres, manual gearbox, Piezo Injectors and a taller 5th gear and keeping the weight down all help. You need to find a different example - hint: my previous 200series used 20% more fuel than my troopy.
well done on a great vid. i learnt a few things . i started out with the basic aussie straight 6 , have used 4 pots most of my life because of money , but as the tec has crept into them , i have longing for the basic 6 of yester year , so thanks for the wake up , i will keep on with the 4 pot . it would be nice if they did a stripped out prado or land cruiser , to get the weight down
I'd not that the peak tourqe for the troopy is hit over a wider rev range. I'd conjuncture that is due to the computer keeping it down on purpouse so something doesn't break, rather than letting it go nuts. Allthough in practice, this would make a very minor difference to nearly every activity.
That was an absolutely superb little lecture - very enjoyable and informative. Great! Tiny little nit-pick? The mass of the vehicle *does* change as the fuel gets consumed - but the percentage mass change is small due to the comparative weight of the vehicle vs. the weight of fuel carried, so it's reasonable to say "stays the same". This one, and your Mitsu PHEV massacre are now my favourites on your channel. More!
I was really impressed that you calculated the cylinder surface area, but than you did not mention heat loss through these surfaces. Isnt this a bigger venue of energy loss than the friction (disregarding the valve train)?
Neither the Troopy nor the 200 series have thermodynamic or fuel efficiency as a priority in their respective designs, so it makes sense that the Prado would be more fuel efficient as the smaller, smarter, more real-world-relevant Land Cruiser offering.
How are you driving a troopy to burn 15l/100?? I've never gone over 11, mid to high 10s is pretty consistent, and I don't take it easy on it either. I'd suggest real world consumption on a Prado would be very close to the same as that for most people, maybe 5% better, not 35%.
@@SteveMack You're not, except you made a big (though not very believable) claim without any data to back it up. Trip computers produce good ballpark figures but I'm yet to see one that doesn't underestimate consumption by at least 0.4lt/100km. Filling your tank, zeroing the trip meter then logging the km and litres next fill over many tanks is the only way to accurately calculate consumption, no trip computer needed. The odometer needs to be accurate and unaffected by different sized tyres or gearing changes. A GPS is an easy way to check that. My bet is you'll find the old girl isn't as favourable on fuel as you're thinking.
The attraction of the Troop carrier is that you can fit a bed in the back and also sit upright inside without your head hitting the roof. Try doing that in any other 4WD. They are the ultimate practical tourer for 1 or 2 people. The 76 series vs the Prado would be a more worthy question.
Ive done that in my gq, false floor with 140ah battery, 40l water bladder, tools, recovery gear, and other stuff all under the false floor. All i need to do is take my chair out and unroll mattress and camp setup is sorted. im 6'3 and can comfortably kneel or sit upright. If i have my partner with me i simply undo my fridge and custom camping box/table via 4 carabiners and its a double bed. Rx and Ti GQs are luxury compared with a troopy when driving, superior offroad, and i got mine grandpa spec for 5k, 0 rust well maintained.
I don't know what the current Prado's are like, but in my old 90 series, you could fold the 2nd and 3rd rows flat, put a double air mattress on top of them and still sit up without hitting your head.
Great video, John. Americans watching this will be asking "what's a troopy?". The Prado might be good for towing the kids, caravan and wife (in that order), but a Troopy is a no nonsense "when I said where we're going, we don't need roads, I f*cking meant it". A scratch, a dent? No wuckers! Most are owned by government departments like police and ambulance, so the drivers don't care about fuel economy.
I'm American, I had to look up what a Prado AND a Troopy were! :) But no worries, safe as houses, no need for panic, and Bob's your uncle and all that. Greet the Sheilas for me, willya?
Thanks John, once again true to your Engineering background. Appreciate the truth which is often overlooked. Good old gasoline 350 Chevrolet. Available from 150 HP to 370 HP with fuel consumption from not much to not really good. Fuel burn at best for most internal combustion is 1/2lb of fuel per horsepower hour. Look at early turbojets (Boeing 707/Douglas DC8, Pratt & Whitneyt JT3C) vs turbo compound piston engines (Lockheed Super constellation Curtis Wright R3350DA3). Flying westward from London, one needed a stop at Gander in Newfoundland to then get to New York. The other being piston engined could fly London - Los Angeles on one fill. It is horse for Courses and what one wants. A 3.0L Evinrude can make 250 HP at 5700 RPM. Weighs in at 300 kilos. A Fairbanks Morse four cylinder hot bulb can also make the same HP at 30 tonnes in weight. Efficiencies as you explain so well is what drives engineering. Most punters don't really care as long as the Hyundai Santa Fe with mum and kids going to the sports on Saturday's causes at least 15 near miss accidents, 40 frustrated drivers, but as long as she gets there with phone glued to her ear and the children can play sport prior to supermarket, fast food and gets 7.0L/100KM... Then who am I to argue about road users...
the 70 series isn't supposed to be aerodynamic for the basic reason that it needs it's windows and cabin and seat position in a straight up position so that you get better visibility of the road or trail. If they worry about aerodynaics like in the hilux or prado then it isn't a workhorse anymore.
I drive a Troopie for work every day and I have never noticed poor fuel consumption. I do have a company fuel card however.
i also don't notice things that other people pay for,,,
Stupid comment.
Work out the fuel consumption yourself
🤣🤣🤣
Remember it's a v8...a normal V6 troopie I believe is ok
70 series maybe is overrated..but not really..it has diff locks
Hi John, I have owned both these vehicles and fuel economy both city/country are very similar 10.8L per 100k's. The difference is hook the boat up and the troopy/V8 uses less than the harder working in-line 4.
So, did Toyota pinch your idea, John? At the 19:05 minute mark. Nailed it
Fortunately I'm retired. Therefore, I have ample time to watch your entire back catalogue! Thanks JC.
Very well put together explanation.
However, the public needs to remember the 70 series vehicles are built for a specific purpose. They are a completely different vehicle compared to Hilux, Prado, Ranger, Triton, Patrol, etc. The 70 series is designed mostly for durability and in standard form are capable of twice the work and twice the mileage of smaller vehicles. Hence they are most popular with military, mines, farming, and remote overland travel. You will rarely see these engines undergo a major overhaul under 500,000 + kms. Yes they are underpowered, slow, less efficient and expensive but they will last longer and are not designed for day to day urban use.
The small 4 cylinder diesels producing the same if not more power comes with compromise. In standard form, they will run 2 to 3 times more boost pressure to get the same output, 70 series around 8psi, and Hilux/Prado around 20psi or more. At 14psi, you effectively double the engine capacity. With these engines highly strung, they are not as durable and correct maintenance is more critical. I have seen late model 4 cylinder diesels let go anywhere from 120,000 to 250,000kms More turbo failures than internal component failure but they are more susceptible than the larger underpowered V8.
Interesting video, John, decent explanation... Unfortunately, the one thing you neglected to explain was that the V8 in the troopy is deliberately detuned by Toyota, to maximize it's reliability and overall lifespan. Sure, you can juice a little motor up to within an inch of it's life, get a similar performance, but it'll never replace a motor designed for ultimate reliability in the bush, where your very life might depend on it. Don't take it personally, but this is a really common issue with city people, who just compare numbers on a whiteboard, without considering the kind of isolated and rugged environment these vehicles are designed for.
Couldn’t agree more.
John, I absolutely love your clear yet detailed explanation of the beer garden physics of fuel efficiency. You didn’t explore the topic, but presumably a more effective turbo on the Troopy would indeed allow it to be more fuel efficient. A video on that subject would no doubt be very enlightening.
Aftermarket companies specialise in this area as well.
Ah the V8 troopy, put 10 people in the back on a cold winter morning and then try and find the rear demister switch. 70 grand of pure poverty.
It's easier to be poor like that when you're rich.
Since when do you need to fit 10 people in the back? And why would they be expecting luxury?
What sissy uses a troopy like a luxury vehicle, we used them to haul crates full of ammo and hand grenades in the back over muddy tracks in Colombia
@@jimtekkit on a job site. Bench seats both sides.
@@jimtekkit 80k for a basic shitbox designed 50 years ago with a piss weak engine, well, you'd expect luxury because it has nothing else to offer.
From experience on working on both engines over many years, I have a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that the 4.5L 1VD-FTV in the troop carrier and other Toyota models has a much greater life expectancy, or, time before overhaul, than the 4 cylinder turbo diesel 1KD-FTV/2KD-FTV in well maintained scenarios. Whether that balances out the extra fuel expenses over the lifetime of the V8 turbo diesel engine, I am not so sure.
Yes because it's understressed and underworked
@@mwat22 Yeah, having one less Turbo but the same sized sump means the Oil doesn't have to work as hard. Also the cooling jacket is designed to deal with a twin turbo system.
Once again a very interesting breakdown, just the right amount of detail without going full engineer, quality as always John 👍
Now we need EE to go full engineer on it. I bet his car drawing skills would be on point.
Now we need EE to go full engineer on it. I bet his car drawing skills would be on point.
@@SoulTouchMusic93 I think EE is still in that “being careful what he says” part of life, which John left behind a few years ago 😀 A collaboration on automotive engineering stuff would always be welcome though, both of them do great stuff 👍
Partly because of you insistence on a proper tow vehicle. I bought a Toyota Tundra 4.6l RWD truck to pull our 2400lb camper (in USA). Very happy I did that. Thank you!
During a trip to beat the big outdoors into submission last year (25,000km from WA to Cape York via Tassie and Birdsville), i had the TD42 beefed up with a larger ball bearing turbo, intetcooler and pump. Dyno said 140kw at the wheels through the 4 speed Nissan auto. Don't think I'll get any more ambitious given the losses mentioned, the TD42 must be approaching its sensible reliability limit. It's in a 2k3 GU Patrol wagon pulling a 1.7T camper usually under 90kmh.
For those interested it's running an 11mm pump and 20psi max. And yes, lots of guages watching stuff.
My friend Rob must be a V8 as he consumes vast amounts of liquid.
Which country
Very informative. I had a F100 with 6l V8 petrol and although it was a thirsty beast it was a truck and the fuel consumption did not change wether it was fully loaded or empty, just the ability to accelerate and the relative speed capabilities varied.
The troopy is an industrial vehicle and under load will out perform but the Prado has more creature comfort. Put a fully loaded trailer behind each one and the compare.
John, once again superbly described. I'm comfortable with the concepts (I'm a mech engineer) but you make them so much more accessible. Thank you.
Toyota should have kept developing their straight 6 diesels, a mistake to go to the V8
They are back to 6s sacked the 8s
Ever driven the v8 twin turbo diesel?
10 litres per 100 kms from my 2009 sahara
@@Jay-en7bw yeh but v6 should be a inline 6 better low end touque then v8 or v6 the reason trucks larger tractors run in lines not v engines and they last longer
v8 all day cityboy
Still just in the first quarter or so of this video but I have to say man I do love your beer garden lessons. The combustion 101 segment might seem basic as fuck to some and it is I guess but as a layman I appreciate your no fat on the bone explanation of things 👍 same thing applies for all of your videos and most definitely all the recent 4x4 themed ones. Cheers
Great query! Listening to your response now, John!
Lots'a love, cheers, & Mabuhay, from tropical Philippines!
Great to see these type of tech talk videos. I work for toyota as a mechanic and the 70 series 4.5L is a dinosaur in everyway but we still love it haha
which car would you buy, if you had to, after it had done 380,000km? one of those 4cyl or the single turbo 4.5? (same life)
I have found when towing heavy weights smaller engines use a lot more fuel because u can't lift your foot off the floor .
Trucks running interstate that have a motor with less than 400hp and 62 tonnes will be running for an extra 2 hours between Sydney and Melbourne because they can't get up the hills at a decent rate
Great vid John, yes the Prado is more efficient, but if you remap a troopy you get much better economy, but you can also live in a troopy it is a different animal, I can go bush for a much longer time in my troopy the in my Prado I love both, thanks for your great simplicity of explaining the two options 👍
This video changed my view about smaller capacity and leases cylinder count engines
Thanks for the indepth explanation, awesome as allways for us tech nerds, love it.
The troopie is for the man who lives by the catch-cry of "no replacement for displacement" and would never be seen in a 4-cylinder.
They cry about 6 cylinders
Extremely well explained, now I understand the science behind the low power in the troopie even the torque is even lower, huge surprise
As a fellow Engineer but not Mechanical that was good for a listen. The fact that I drive a 200 also hooked me.
For all those in the beginnings of a complete mental breakdown at the demise of the V8 in the 200 series.., throw a bucket of cold water over yourself and have a think about the fact that a 15 year old 100 series with a 4.2 6 cylinder diesel with 350,000ks on the clock still sell for $40k
Haha true that!
At 500,000kms, the Troopy will still have another 500,00kms of life left in the engine, the Prado will require a rebuild.
@@alansailing1387 I agree, I wasn't comparing the troopy to the Prado, more making a comment in regards to the current somber mood in regards to the demise of the V8 in the next landcruiser (300), and that the 1hdt 4.2 turbo diesel (inline 6) that was in the 80/100 series were, and still are, regarded as one of the best diesel engines ever put into a vehicle, and it didn't have 8 cylinders.
Got a 98 75 Troopy "house" pop top 1HZ turbo 260.000 get about 1300 klms out of both tanks.
@@alansailing1387 my uncle just replaced his v8 in his 2014 troopy after 140k, blew a piston, my 2012 1kd prado still going strong at exactly the same kms, oh well
Thank you John you are a true engineer. Is what I do when I chose a car. Choosing longer stroke engine and final drive ratio.
I just loved how you used that wrench to point at the "chalkboard". Reminded me of school and put a grin on my face. (smiley emote)
What a great channel. Real info to expand our real knowledge rather than just repeating crap that is wrong !
3.0L 4 cylinder Turbo Diesel all day
doesn't sound as good as a V8 but the 4 cylinder will do most job in the most economical way possible
I agree. As soon as they figured out that by adding a turbo to a 4 cyl diesel, it went from drab and gutless to wooohooo !! Now that's the tickit !!
John i just learned a heap after dinner! Facts v marketing. Love it, just like yesterday's chat on Ford AU. Keep keeping us informed. Chris
The V8 will use less fuel when towing or under heavy loads than a 4 cylinder, which is what they're designed to do. Not to mention the 4 cylinder will wear out faster. Get a Prado and tow 2.5 tones with it and then do that with the troopy. Then make another video with your findings.
I'll share my results with you. I own a 79 series Landcruiser with this exact engine. On the highway i get 11 litres per 100 unloaded (not towing) and no headwind. When towing a ton of camper trailer it barely changes and goes up to 12 to 13 litres per 100kms. 3 years ago i had a brand new Hilux with the same engine as the Prado you're talking about (1GD). Unloaded on the highway the Hilux would use less fuel at around 10 litres per 100kms. Towing the same trailer it jumped up to 14 litres per 100. It used MORE fuel than my Landcruiser. And since fitting a Steinbauer power module to the Cruiser economy has improved even more as it boosts the turbo more getting more air into the engine along with more fuel. And that's only a very mild tune of 25% increase. The trick is you spend less time accelerating to get up to speed, so it uses less overall fuel. Yes, it's drinking more when the foot is down, but the foot spends less time being down.
Cruising speed makes the biggest difference to a Landcruiser's fuel economy. And a lot of cars for that matter. Wind drag is massive as you pointed out. If i sit on 110km/h, it will use considerably more fuel. A much bigger difference than towing. Towing my camper trailer only uses 2 litres per 100kms more at any given speed. Driving at 110 with no trailer compared to 90km/h will make a bigger difference, more like 3 to 4 litres per 100kms.
Show me a 4 cylinder 2.8 litre with 6 to 700,000kms on it. Then show me how many and how hard they've worked to get there. Plenty of 1VD-FTV V8's out there with that amount of genuine kms on them which i may point out have worked hard. Longevity is King and i STILL believe in the old saying," There's no replacement for displacement". Show me a Kenworth prime mover with a 2.8 litre 4 cylinder in it. It wouldn't even turn the wheels mate. A Kenworth cruising down the road with no trailer will use more fuel than a 4 cylinder. Now put 100 tones behind it and try again. Big engines do big work and small engines do small work. It's as simple as that.
this car (tlc-70-ser) is absolutely fantastic car. it's a practically almost ideal perfection. only 4-things are missing in this car. I would say very important things are missing. those things are: 1. unfortunately the engine in on timing belt instead of timing chain or would be even even better gear-set. 2. unfortunately not optional automatic transmission. 3. unfortunately not optional soft top / removable top/doors options. 4. unfortunately no panoramic roof option. that 4-things would make this car just unbelievably cool. other than that if you want to know which 2-cars are the very best in the world,.. as a most durable, reliable , long-lasting, low-maintenance and etc, that would be this tlc-70-ser. and Nissan patrol (super-safari. y61-model. btw is still in production to date like tlc-70-ser) (don't get confused with the modern last model patrol y62 model, this is different animal. super-safari is y61 model not y62.)... ..,./// as for fuels consumption for diesel 4.2 non-turbine, naturally aspirated engine on tlc-70-series the diesel consumption specifically on that engine is in the city-20-25-liters on 100km. and on the hwy is 10-15-liters per 100km. depending on driving habits and defending many other factories for both cases. but this is real life info. and one more thing: never!!!, never!! listen to official fuel-consumption numbers on any car . what car passport or computer fuel-consumption data saying on your dash screen. is always a huge lie. difference between the official and real life consumption numbers are just ridiculous. the difference can be even 200%-300% or even more which just unheard of lie.
yeah the y61 patrol is miles better than the 70series.
If you put them both on a dyno you will see that the factory specs are bull... the v8 will make a lot more power real world also put a 3 ton trailer behind both and see which one has better fuel economy. The prado is designed to take kids to school, 70 series is designed to be worked hard all day everyday in demanding conditions
Did you listen to anything he said, or were you watching troopie and VB ads from the 80's? Dont get me wrong, I love a troopie, but it is not efficient, or technologically advanced.
I wonder why big trucks (The Kenworth type) have doubled in engine size and better than halved the fuel use over the past 25 years. If Toyota brought the V8 up to 21st century specs no one would buy anything else... my C6 Corvette (LS2) gets 8.5/100 on the highway at 110kph without trying and that’s old tech just it only weighs 1400kg is fairly aerodynamic... but I’m biased, I like the V8 rumble.
@@id10tcertified that’s basically perfect speed for that type of car though…
And it is lighter and lower than these vehicles
Your corvette takes 15l in the city
If the Sheila’s like ‘em, I’m in like Flynn
Dave should take a good long test drive in a 70 series with the V8 diesel (then buy the Prado). John's done an excellent analysis of the data, but drive it and you'll understand qualitatively what the science actually translates to. The 1VD-FTV V8 "feels" like eight cylinders all fighting each other like piglets at the tit. You don't have to do the maths to realise it's not a very efficient engine, you can hear and feel all the energy that is being wasted when you drive it. I was well into the swing of selling these trucks a few years ago when I got hold of a Japanese fire tender based on a 1991 70 series with the 1HZ straight six. It had done just 9000km and the smoothness of the 1HZ was a revelation. Equally eye-opening was that despite the naturally-aspirated 96kw/288nm of the old 4.2l and the fire tender being over 3 tonnes at the kerb, it certainly didn't feel any more gutless than the V8.
Had a v8 tipper with a chip bin, weighed 3t empty. The difference between the v8 and the i6 is night amd day, especially when towing 2.5T and carrying a load of mulch.
Yeah the 6 is smooth but the v8 gets there in daylight
I am a loyal owner of pre-historic diesel powered Landcruisers and have been for the past 10+ years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I found this video very interesting, but what I got out of it is that the V8 is dead when compared side by side with the 2.8 inline 4 because that it does everything so much more efficiently??? Obviously the V8 has the cool factor and that V8 sound, which the 4 cylinder can't beat. If the 4 cylinder is so much better than the V8 then why do I predominately see the V8 and older diesel inline 6 Landcruisers when travelling the outback? I seriously don't think that I can name a single occasion when I was 500km from the nearest town and didn't see a Landcruiser being used out there. Surely there has to be something going for the V8? What about longevity or reliability? PS, when I mentioned the pre-historic, dinosaur era Landcruiser diesel engines, I was referring directly to the non-turbo 2H and the turbocharged 12HT engines found in the 60 series. I currently own an automatic 12HT which puts out 82kw at the wheels (originally 100kw at the crank in stock form) and I'm happy with the way it performs. My 2H and 12HT powered 60 series Landcruisers have literally taken me to every place in Australia that I have ever been. Do you think that the 2.8 inline 4 could possibly survive without a rebuild for 1,000,000km like many of these older engines have?
Thanks John. Great video. Has toypta fixed the dpf issue and how does the 2.8 compare to the 4.5 on longevity?
That’s some Julius Sumner Miller shit right there Cdog!!!! I like it.. I bet all that talk of force, power and acceleration gets the Ming moles worked into a right frenzy... keep it up..👍
Like your explanation here, making so clear what we get
I can see two advantages of the V8 Troopy. It's possible a little smoother than the Prado, and the noise is way cooler.
I love your demystifying lectures on technical issues. More please.
In a time not long ago I was the proud owner of a vdj76 2010 LandCruiser wagon. Loved it went like a cut cat but I couldn't complain about the fuel consumption. On highway fuel consumption was 10.1 ltrs to 100 klms. And if I was towing my 1975 Viscount 18ft caravan ( without the combined shiter/dinning room) the fuel consumption was at 10.5 ltrs to 100 klms.
Btw that wasn't driving it at 80 kph, it was driven at posted speed limits.
@@chrisjohnston5961 That doesn't square with my experience at all. We just did Adelaide -> Birdsville -> Simpson -> Mt Dare-> Adelaide in a 2020 GXL 76 series. 2 swags on the roof and supplies for a 3 week trip. On bitumen at 100 or 110 we were getting 14.6L/100. Through the desert we were getting 16.7L/100. Your 10.5L/100 towing doesn't seem remotely possible, even if your 76 is running an older 6 cylinder engine (I don't know that much about LandCruisers , and when the engines changed). You must have had a tail wind, and been running downhill to get 10's!!
No she was a 4.5ltr V8 turbo diesel running an aftermarket chip
my troopy uses 15L/100 with big tyres roof rack and loaded rear setup, id imagine any other 4x4 with the same load in it would use very similar. Not sure what the comparison is. It also gets those figures towing a 1t trailer almost every day and living in a hilly area.
But will the increasingly highly strung prado motor do 1 million km + ?
Sure. With a turbo rebuild and two gasket jobs. Just like the 4.6L gasoline V8 in my 2011 Lexus has already had a gasket job before 100K miles versus the flawless running lower revving 4.3L in my 2004 which along with the 6 speed auto is commonly considered here in the States to be the best powertrain Toyota ever put in a vehicle sold in our market. At least Toyota uses a combo fuel injection system so you don’t need to do a carbon cleanout every 100K miles. That said, Toyota gets a lot of flack even here in the land of cheap fuel for its gas-guzzling powertrains. Still doesn’t mean I would trade my Toyota products for a stealership loving Land Rover or BMW.
Probably not, but for the same reason the v8 troopy won't either, and it's nothing to do with being "highly strung" as you so put it, but more the fact that the fuel systems under high pressure will literally erode themselves away before you ever get anywhere near that point. The v8 will last marginally longer though because while it may use 35% more fuel it is spread over 100% more fuel system (2 sets of 4 cylinder rails instead of 1). The days of 1 million km diesel engines ended with the introduction of common rail injection. I'm sure JC will comment on this however it is most unlikely that the v8 was designed by the same company to have a higher service life than the i4, and it is a design decision not just a matter whether the squeeze more power out of one than another. The auto maker sets the brief for the engineering team that they need x power and it has to last y period of time / distance travelled / work done.
I have the V8 and bet they will last the same amount of time. Modern engines are all the same. The 1HZ is a million km motor but it was built basic and it’s not common rail with electronic shit. But to the point. One wont last longer than the other with same maintenance.
i suppose well have 4 cyl turbo kenworths ..good for 1 changeover
@@mungbean84 replace the fuel rail then. The old Volvo 4cyl was one of the longest running in km engines ever, so I wouldn't assume just because an engine has 4 cyl it can't do high km. Trucks Get to 1m km regularly
Bravo John. I might have pursued mechanical engineering rather than fluid mechanics had you been instructing me (over 50 years ago!) in engineering school.
Being 79 owner your Spot on with original Toyota spec mapping. Strangely, when mapped to real world and 3” exhaust, you get twice the kw and torque return for no measurable difference in consumption and lower loss of energy via lower egt’s. Torque curve is all the way through rev range. Why Toyota torture us with this is a mystery yet I do not know ANY buyer of the v8 who has stayed with the original tune. I will say, on corrugated roads, at 80kmh, and even with wheel spin, I get as low as 12lt per 100. It’s fully 1/3 better than at 110k on highway when using it for what it’s built for..... funny that. Be very interested to see your figures if real Dyno tested vehicles (at wheel torque/power) after mods. Really enjoyed the video and thanks, keep up the awesome content!5 stars!!
I have heard that often more fuel is burnt to improve emissions output, stuff like lower burn temps for less NOx, I gather. I don't know any real facts, but it makes sense to me that the manufacturer has many points to consider in a tune, not just max power and max economy, which is generally the aim of aftermarket tunes.
Just another tidbit of personal opinion and probable misinformation on the internet.
I think the main reason people go for the Troopys is reliability.
I mean, there are plenty of more efficient 4WD's, that's just a fact. But if you're driving around in the middle of nowhere, breaking down is more than a bit inconvenient.
The Troopys are reliable because they're simple. And they're also easy to get parts for.
So's a 4jj1 , rock solid , flat torque curve and economical
@@alexfrankl7861 4JJ1 is common rail.
Common rail improves efficiency, but has lower tolerance for error.
@@Knowbody42 all the 4.5L V8's are common-rail too.
And the 'easy to get parts' theory is rubbish. If you need anything more than an air, fuel or oil filter (which you should carry your own spares of anyway) whilst out in the bush, you're gonna be waiting for parts to be flown in no matter what brand of vehicle you drive.
There are no car dealersships and parts departments in Birdsville or Bamaga, for example!
@@danbywaters6123 Wherever you do find dealerships for 4WD's, you'll almost always find parts for the Troopie.
@@Knowbody42 that's exactly my point. There are no dealerships out in the bush!!!!
Excellent video, I have one comment - your 100km/hour was relatively common 150 years ago on British railways. No cliff required.
Cheers
Vic
Great Video again John... Truck (Prime Movers/Tractors) manufacturer’s (usually) go into great detail to provide the correct size engine for Transporters. This is obviously important to provide the best fuel economy for the load and conditions required. I have heard there are many arguments with drivers wanting the biggest, most powerful engines - Vs the person paying the fuel bills 😜
CAT hasn't made a over the road truck engine for about 10 years
bruce poole - yes that is correct...
ruclips.net/video/6jp4_ipDltk/видео.html
But where is the point of diminishing returns; i.e. a gigantic engine simply guzzles fuel whether or not it's pulling a load. The key is sizing the engine to the max expected load it is expected to pull I would expect, no?
Question about reliability. What will last longer? A small, modern, high boost motor or a big motor with 50% more parts?
How long do you reckon a 2.8L 4 cylinder with that degree of stresses is going to last compared to a 4.5L V8. I never really liked the idea of a V8 however due to extortionate rego prices.
Should last fine. Small engines have been around for years. At 150kw and 2.8L it’s hardly stressed. Ranger is 2L for the same output
Time will tell.
@@donaldsayers4967 Time already has told, for years.
They still outlast the chassis.
@@godfreypoon5148 mate I have a friend who rebuilds diesels for a living and the Ford ranger engines he does several a week. They don't last and the forums are full of sob stories about late model common rail diesels dead. I unfortunately owned a 2lte and they were almost impossible to keep alive. So yes time will tell.
@@donaldsayers4967 Oh, trust Ford to screw it up.
I meant in general. Small engines don't necessarily wear out fast.
Really enjoyed this video as I do all your videos, so much reaserch goes in to them and always informative and well presented 👍🏼👍🏼
Not sure I’d use bore area for friction? Piston ring circumference (length of contact area) multiplied by travel (stroke) seems more logical and still ignores all the crank bearings.
That's exactly the same thing
Troopy owner since 1980. True story. I'm insulted that you assumed I'd be insulted. ;) Seriously though, great factual vid mate. Loved it.
It would have been good to show a Hp & torque map for each engine overlayed together. That way we are not looking just a peek numbers. Still a great video.
One thing you didn't discus was the state of tune in both engines. The Prado is a soccer moms car with a higher state of tune than the V8. The troopy is designed to run around mine sites and so runs a lesser state of tune. Bring the tune up higher and the fuel economy is better and the power is greatly increased. I am talking here of a slight remap and not a silly tune. If the troopy had more power standard then they would be rolling them over regularly.
Rolling them even more regularly you mean :) troopys are classic rollover hazards. I still like mine.
Hey John, mate I love your videos. The LandCruiser 200 - the vehicle of choice to beat the outback into submission. There is a lot of talk about transmission remaps and lock up kits for the 200 series. Can you do a beer garden discussion on why or why not you would consider doing the remap and lock up kit?
Yessss, Thanks John. As always a great video.
Now can we have one going the other way where some engines are so undersized they end up using more fuel?
Exactly. My 2017 hilux did exactly that. I have a 2020 model troopy and have absolutely no issues with the fuel consumption and that’s because I don’t drive it like I stole it
Jeez....I actually understood all that. Well done John.
Awesome video John!
Just being picky I know, but on your comparo page with the motors, (approx 20:41 mins) you had kw twice instead of NM on the second value for the Troopy and Prado.
Yes, we are paying attention
kW. Don't forget Mr. Watt. Newton was mega, I quite agree.
Thanks for another Awesome Video John! Beer garden physics all the way on the drive home ♥ 💕
Great information, expertly delivered. Thanks JC
Depends if you want to pull a trailer. The V8 can outwork the turbo 4 under the table. Cold start enrichment: The 4 will warm up a quick.
My 1993 Ford Crown Victoria used to burn about 25L/100km during cold start enrichment. 8-9L/100km hot and running city or hwy.
Rated: 14.2L/100km city 8.6km/100 hwy
Glad you came out with this video right when im looking at a troopy for next purchase. Can we see more of this “engineering for dummies 101”
Buy a 20 year old one (because it's the same as the current model) and swap the 200 series v8 into it... Or the prado 4cyl...
Toyota Japan must have heard you, John! Rumours are rife that the 70 Series will be available with the 1GD 2.8 4 cylinder motor and 6 speed auto. At least for the 76 Series wagon in Japan anyway. The 1VD motor in the 70 Series is deliberately detuned simply to be matched to the maximum torque handling characteristics of the 5 speed manual gearbox. Just putting a tune on the V8 in the 70 Series will result in the factory clutch slipping soon after.
18:00 - Piston ring area - The rings are only in contact with the circumference of the cylinders, not the area of them. Sorry if this has been noted by others first!
this is one great video I wanted to watch and start the new year with real good info...
Absolute stellar presentation. Congrats.
I'd like to see the cylinder pressures comparison. And as John noted the v8 should make those power numbers of 200kw and 680nm and they do as soon as you tune them. But they can't sell them like that because that would make the 200 series at 100k to 135k look ridiculous. That's why the base models have either a smaller engine or 1 turbo less, or are detuned. Imagine paying 90k for a prado Kakadu model it couldn't pull the skin off a custard.
I hired a Toyota Prado diesel and did solely highway driving. It was a 'free' upgrade. ADR81 says the car burns 7l/100km, but the dashboard stated 9.8 all the way. Sure enough when I refueled at Uluru at $2.10/l, the car had chewed 10l per 100km. You can imagine how delighted I was. Something is seriously wrong with the test.
Just going to say, this was actually very educational and entertaining for myself and was thinking very similar regards instead of Prado, was MU-X vs 76 series LandCruiser
Combustion 101 - No Edits. Respect.
Awesome explanation 👍Toyota should definitely have an upgraded version of the troop carrier and 79 utes with the 200 series driveline on offer, with 6 speed auto and 200kw/700nm . You can build it aftermarket but it’s probably around $30k plus, so why not offer it as say a $15k option, it’s just a few bolt on mods surely there is still room for profit and people can get what they want??
Issue is they couldn’t fit the 200 series engine in there
makes not real sense both for toyota and for the user. Yes the 200 series driveline is more efficent. BUT mostly becaus it produces a lot more power with the same deplacement. The 200 series is a luxury vehicle were you want an impressive performance. The 70 series is work horse were you want enough power.
Why does no one ever talk about power/torque curves? It’s not great looking at the maximum figures. A Troopy is designed for a lot of weight and longevity hence the v8. A Prado is an awful towing vehicle and they end up using the same fuel when towing but the v8 does it easier. The aerodynamics are so different, especially with the larger diameter tyres and near vertical windscreen. Torque means a lot when thinking about what these two vehicles are used for.
Love it, I’ve got near two toolboxes full of old spanners that look like that, most were handed down from my granddad who was born in 1899: I’ve got tools from him and an old guy (RIP) who lived across the road that I’ve no clue about: every now and then something I watch on RUclips will have something the same or similar... damn they worked hard back then.
Troopy owner here 🖐️
You covered a lot of good ground there but missed the single most important factor that effects thermal efficiency - that is, the combustion chamber surface area to cylinder displacement volume ratio. That directly affects how much heat energy is lost through the walls of the combustion chamber as a proportion of its capacity. This is why 4 cylinder motors always return better consumption than a similar capacity motors with more cylinders, it's why bigger engines are more efficient than smaller engines of otherwise similar design. It's how the ship engines get their 67% thermal efficiency.
Although friction is higher, I would disagree it's the main factor in engine efficiency.
Toyota did with the 70 series what they've always done when they want reliability, they took a large engine and detuned it so that it's effectively allways in limp mode, they use a drastically larger safety margin on stressed components than they use on the smaller engines, this is why they last so long. It is evidenced by the fact that the torque curve on the 1VDFTE engine is pretty much dead flat, when we all know that a graph of the pumping efficiency (the key defining measure that limits engine output) over engine speed would definitely not be flat.
I believe comparing peak power output is not a useful measure of comparison when you have anything other than an infinitely variable transmission to direct that peak power to the ground, the average power over the used rev range when mowing through gears would be a more direct comparison, although a bit complicated to measure.
You make an interesting point but I have doubts about the 67% thermal efficiency figure. I'm far from being a thermodynamics - or engine - specialist but I'm only aware of 55% as the best efficiency ever achieved by a diesel engine.
@@frogzie you're probably right, I vaguely recall the efficiency of the biggest ship every built being quoted at 67%. Could well be wrong!
My point is more that the thermal efficiency goes up drastically as the combustion chamber surface area to capacity ratio goes down.
It makes sense. Friction area/capacity ratio: (2*pi*r*h)/(*pi*r^2*h) = 2/r
@@frogzie I'm sure I've seen that somewhere else, is it no 84 beef in black bean sauce ?
🙂
This vid is ageing well!..
He is an Automotive Engineer who has worked for major automakers.
Here in the US the value of reliability often outweighs the cost of fuel. Toyotas are more commonly known to last hundreds of thousands of miles without catastrophic failure or excessively expensive repairs whereas many other cars and light trucks are pretty much through at a bit over 100,000 miles and sometimes even less.
I'm sure that in some parts of the world fuel prices would more heavily influence the purchase decision.
But overall, this has been an interesting beer garden math exercise.
Both are Toyotas
@@jasonfields2793
They might not get the prado there, or it's under a different name.
@@Robert-cu9bm No diesel models..all petrol. US enthusiasts who know what they are missing out on want a good diesel...the power brokers won't allow them to be imported...would destroy the US domestic pick-up market sales.
@@teenaramsay2469
America has some of the strictest emission laws. The diesels don't pass it.
The only reason the truck can get away with it, is because they're body on frame and classed as commercial so don't have the same emissions laws.
@@jasonfields2793 Yup, no diesels here and Toyota uses different names in the US. Still, my point being that here many people might consider a vehicle with a track record of reliability over something with better fuel economy.
Just used my first tank of fuel; 50% urban/50% highway 12.5 litres per hundred. Only a little more than my previous car; a Prado.
Plus the 78 makes you smile more.
G’day John thank you for your excellent series of informative videos.
We are the owners of a 2010 V8 Troopy. We find it to be a most suitable vehicle for long touring. However any seed over about 90km ph results in a major drop in economy. A word loosely used. 90 gives us 14/100 110 gives us 16/100. Now we do have full length roof rack the rest is standard.
We have 240,000 km up.
Any suggestions that can help improve economy.
Regards Sue and Paul.
The V8 Troopy is an absolute rocket ship compared to the old 6 cylinder non-turbo diesel Troopy, which I think was about 70kw. You feel like Peter Brock in the V8, after pottering around in the 6.
Is still very, very slow compared to any of the current 4 cylinder turbo diesels unless you take it to a tuner to unlock the power (and loose the engine and driveline warranty in the process)
Great for mining and farms.
@@Danger_mouse well.. the old Hilux was doing 0-100 in 12.7 and the Troopy about 14.7, so if those 2 seconds mean "very very slow compared to".. i guess
You can still buy a new inline 6 cylinder troopy at Toyota in Papua New Guinea. 70 series are the only vehicles that don’t shake to pieces on the gravel roads.
@@tonydoggett7627 wow, really? Very surprising. Is it the turbo? Those are very sought after in Australia.
xpusostomos non turbo and no emissions equipment. I’ve seen them new at Lae Toyota myself & driven the gravel roads of PNG in a 70.
Hi John. wonderful video and very enlightening. My theory is that the longevity of the 4.5L V8 Troopy is going to greatly exceed that of the 4Cyl Prado Engine because a big engine is working very lightly to achieve the tasks asked of it compared with the small 4cy Prado engine. 1. Would this be a fair claim? 2. What is the difference in turbo charger boost of 4.5 V8 vs 2.8 4cyl?
My 2019 Troopy is the most economical 4wd I've owned. Gets 10L/100k around town and 15L/100k towing a caravan. Skinny tyres, manual gearbox, Piezo Injectors and a taller 5th gear and keeping the weight down all help. You need to find a different example - hint: my previous 200series used 20% more fuel than my troopy.
Fantastic Physics Lesson John!
well done on a great vid. i learnt a few things . i started out with the basic aussie straight 6 , have used 4 pots most of my life because of money , but as the tec has crept into them , i have longing for the basic 6 of yester year ,
so thanks for the wake up , i will keep on with the 4 pot .
it would be nice if they did a stripped out prado or land cruiser , to get the weight down
I'd not that the peak tourqe for the troopy is hit over a wider rev range. I'd conjuncture that is due to the computer keeping it down on purpouse so something doesn't break, rather than letting it go nuts. Allthough in practice, this would make a very minor difference to nearly every activity.
That was an absolutely superb little lecture - very enjoyable and informative. Great!
Tiny little nit-pick? The mass of the vehicle *does* change as the fuel gets consumed - but the percentage mass change is small due to the comparative weight of the vehicle vs. the weight of fuel carried, so it's reasonable to say "stays the same".
This one, and your Mitsu PHEV massacre are now my favourites on your channel. More!
I was really impressed that you calculated the cylinder surface area, but than you did not mention heat loss through these surfaces. Isnt this a bigger venue of energy loss than the friction (disregarding the valve train)?
Neither the Troopy nor the 200 series have thermodynamic or fuel efficiency as a priority in their respective designs, so it makes sense that the Prado would be more fuel efficient as the smaller, smarter, more real-world-relevant Land Cruiser offering.
How are you driving a troopy to burn 15l/100?? I've never gone over 11, mid to high 10s is pretty consistent, and I don't take it easy on it either. I'd suggest real world consumption on a Prado would be very close to the same as that for most people, maybe 5% better, not 35%.
My old '85 landcruiser (Diesel) wagon (not troopy) has THE best economy of all cars we still have - Better than the Mrs new Mazda 3!
Yep, while sitting on blocks in the driveway.
@@v8snail 😅 no she runs very well actually
@@SteveMack
Maybe, but you haven't backed your claim with actual consumption figures.
@@v8snail ... I didn't think I was obliged too! - no Trip Computer in this one, so thinking old numbers probably 35 miles per gallon Highway.
@@SteveMack
You're not, except you made a big (though not very believable) claim without any data to back it up.
Trip computers produce good ballpark figures but I'm yet to see one that doesn't underestimate consumption by at least 0.4lt/100km.
Filling your tank, zeroing the trip meter then logging the km and litres next fill over many tanks is the only way to accurately calculate consumption, no trip computer needed.
The odometer needs to be accurate and unaffected by different sized tyres or gearing changes. A GPS is an easy way to check that.
My bet is you'll find the old girl isn't as favourable on fuel as you're thinking.
The attraction of the Troop carrier is that you can fit a bed in the back and also sit upright inside without your head hitting the roof. Try doing that in any other 4WD. They are the ultimate practical tourer for 1 or 2 people. The 76 series vs the Prado would be a more worthy question.
Ive done that in my gq, false floor with 140ah battery, 40l water bladder, tools, recovery gear, and other stuff all under the false floor. All i need to do is take my chair out and unroll mattress and camp setup is sorted. im 6'3 and can comfortably kneel or sit upright. If i have my partner with me i simply undo my fridge and custom camping box/table via 4 carabiners and its a double bed. Rx and Ti GQs are luxury compared with a troopy when driving, superior offroad, and i got mine grandpa spec for 5k, 0 rust well maintained.
I don't know what the current Prado's are like, but in my old 90 series, you could fold the 2nd and 3rd rows flat, put a double air mattress on top of them and still sit up without hitting your head.
Great video, John. Americans watching this will be asking "what's a troopy?". The Prado might be good for towing the kids, caravan and wife (in that order), but a Troopy is a no nonsense "when I said where we're going, we don't need roads, I f*cking meant it". A scratch, a dent? No wuckers! Most are owned by government departments like police and ambulance, so the drivers don't care about fuel economy.
I'm American, I had to look up what a Prado AND a Troopy were! :) But no worries, safe as houses, no need for panic, and Bob's your uncle and all that. Greet the Sheilas for me, willya?
@@markh.6687 Yeah, no wuckas. Byoody mate!
Fantastic video, covered everything I would want to see covered, right down to wheel diameter
Thanks John, once again true to your Engineering background. Appreciate the truth which is often overlooked.
Good old gasoline 350 Chevrolet. Available from 150 HP to 370 HP with fuel consumption from not much to not really good.
Fuel burn at best for most internal combustion is 1/2lb of fuel per horsepower hour.
Look at early turbojets (Boeing 707/Douglas DC8, Pratt & Whitneyt JT3C) vs turbo compound piston engines (Lockheed Super constellation Curtis Wright R3350DA3).
Flying westward from London, one needed a stop at Gander in Newfoundland to then get to New York. The other being piston engined could fly London - Los Angeles on one fill.
It is horse for Courses and what one wants.
A 3.0L Evinrude can make 250 HP at 5700 RPM. Weighs in at 300 kilos.
A Fairbanks Morse four cylinder hot bulb can also make the same HP at 30 tonnes in weight.
Efficiencies as you explain so well is what drives engineering. Most punters don't really care as long as the Hyundai Santa Fe with mum and kids going to the sports on Saturday's causes at least 15 near miss accidents, 40 frustrated drivers, but as long as she gets there with phone glued to her ear and the children can play sport prior to supermarket, fast food and gets 7.0L/100KM...
Then who am I to argue about road users...
the 70 series isn't supposed to be aerodynamic for the basic reason that it needs it's windows and cabin and seat position in a straight up position so that you get better visibility of the road or trail. If they worry about aerodynaics like in the hilux or prado then it isn't a workhorse anymore.