Toyota's 4.5L TDV8 blows goats

[Franco Cozzo]

It's AFF's favorite man, John Cadogan

He has an interesting point here, that Toyota 4.5L V8 diesel is an absolute turd (in as delivered factory trim) with expensive maintenance.

Its an ancient piece of crap, but the clip is interesting as its talks about the differences in losses between bigger engines with numbers.

Interestingly he covers the TT variant of the same engine on the 200 series, its much better.

He's done some calculations outlined below:

Here’s a question from a dude named Dave, concerning the King (of mediocrity) - Toyota.

"I'm comparing a Landcruiser Troopie with a new Prado. The Troopie has a V8 with 151kW & 430Nm. The Prado has an inline four-cylinder with 150kW & 500Nm. (Approximately the same power/torque.) But the Troopy uses about 15L/100 compared to the Prado at 10L/100 (both ballpark real world figures, not the ADR fantasies).

"If they output about the same power, where is the big difference in fuel economy coming from? The weight of each car? Aerodynamics? Gearing? Feeding four extra cylinders, with extra engine internal friction?

"If they were the same weight, and had the same Cd value, would they accelerate/overtake the same and have the same fuel usage, even though one is V8 and one an I4?" - David Deere

The data:

Diesel = 45 kJ/g (and if you do that once a second = 45kW)
So, 2.2g/sec = 100kW (of potential heat energy)
Combustion efficiency = 40% = 40kW @ crankshaft
15% loss via transmission = 34kW @ wheels

Prado:
2.755cc
6sp (5th = 0.687:1, 6th = 0.580:1, diff = 3.91:1)
265/65R17 (Circ. = 2.26m)
150kW @ 3400rpm
500Nm @ 1600-2800rpm
Bore x stroke: 92.0 x 103.6mm
ADR economy: 7.9 (combined, L/100km)
Kerb weight: 2325 (GXL)
100km/h = 27.8m/s
= 737 wheel rpm
= 2883 tailshaft rpm
= 1672 engine rpm (6th)
= 1981 engine rpm (5th)
Total swept cylinder area = 120,000 mm^2

Troopie:
5sp (5th = 0.75:1, diff = 3.91:1)
225/95R16 (Circumf = 2.62m)
4.461cc (+62% move volume)
151 @ 3400rpm
430Nm @ 1200-3200rpm
Bore x stroke: 86.0 x 96.0mm
ADR economy: 10.7 (L/100km) - about 35% higher than Prado
Kerb weight 2265kg
100km/h = 27.8m/s
= 636 wheel rpm
= 2487 tailshaft rpm
= 1865 engine rpm (5th) = 11.5% higher than Prado in 6th
Total swept cylinder area = 207,000 mm^2
= 72.5% more area than Prado
** but at 100km/h rpms are also 11.5% higher, so total cylinder wall friction = 81% higher (ballpark)

** Hyundai/Kia 2.2 @ 147 kW & 440 Nm I4
** Mazda 2.2 @ 140 kW & 450 Nm I4

Plus: Troopy needs to drive twice as many valves to do the same job, pumping more oil and water, etc. (Not as volumetrically efficient, and higher pumping losses, etc.)

And the single turbo 4.5 V8 is a rubbish engine - like it’s the cheap, slutty version of the 4.5 TT, which makes 32.5% more peak power, 51% more peak torque and returns slightly better fuel economy - despite being in a platform weighing 500kg more.

[hayseed]

In My Mind were the V8 wins will be in Longevity.
There's plenty of (pre DPF) Troopies & Cab Chassis with in excess of 400,0000 Ks still working, Don't think you'll find Too Prado's with those sort of K's,
But Happy to be Corrected.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by hayseed

In My Mind were the V8 wins will be in Longevity.
There's plenty of (pre DPF) Troopies & Cab Chassis with in excess of 400,0000 Ks still working, Don't think you'll find Too Prado's with those sort of K's,
But Happy to be Corrected.

Why not? I’ve seen at least 8 2012 diesel Prados with over 500,000kms. The highest kms I have driven was just shy of 560,000kms. They won’t all do it, but they can do it

[cheap]

We have a couple of guys on another forum with TDV8's +500,000k's and one guy at +600,000k's - original engine, gearbox and diffs.

I do roughly 20K per year in my 200, serviced as per the book, purchased new, 3 Simpson Desert crossing, countless corrugated miles and dust, no issues.

Based on my usage it will be another 20 years before I get to 500,000K's. Don't know which will occur first (a) the asteroid hit or (b) me giving way?

Still made for a laugh at all the mis-truths generated by "Auto-Expert" and arm chair experts. Take a TDV8 cruiser out for drive into the outback-outback, you might then get to understand what they're all about.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by cheap

We have a couple of guys on another forum with TDV8's +500,000k's and one guy at +600,000k's - original engine, gearbox and diffs.

I do roughly 20K per year in my 200, serviced as per the book, purchased new, 3 Simpson Desert crossing, countless corrugated miles and dust, no issues.

Based on my usage it will be another 20 years before I get to 500,000K's. Don't know which will occur first (a) the asteroid hit or (b) me giving way?

Still made for a laugh at all the mis-truths generated by "Auto-Expert" and arm chair experts. Take a TDV8 cruiser out for drive into the outback-outback, you might then get to understand what they're all about.

Ok, so what about the other 99% of driving when everyone isn't in the 'outback-outback'?

There's no doubt that the 70/200 series are very capable vehicles, but given most Ive seen haven't got a scratch on them and they spend all the time driving along Melbourne's freeways then I'm second guessing how good they are for these purposes.

If people actually watched the clip this wasn't our favorite auto expert ragging on the cruiser out of thin air, it was a question from his viewer he took the time to give a very detailed response to.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Ok, so what about the other 99% of driving when everyone isn't in the 'outback-outback'?

There's no doubt that the 70/200 series are very capable vehicles, but given most Ive seen haven't got a scratch on them and they spend all the time driving along Melbourne's freeways then I'm second guessing how good they are for these purposes.

If people actually watched the clip this wasn't our favorite auto expert ragging on the cruiser out of thin air, it was a question from his viewer he took the time to give a very detailed response to.

Unfortunately, I did watch the video and it rambles on and on.

So here is the summary - different engines with different technologies with different capacities, with different gearing ... drumroll these differences result in different efficiencies.

Golly gosh Cordogan is the new Einstien!

[hayseed]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Why not? I’ve seen at least 8 2012 diesel Prados with over 500,000kms. The highest kms I have driven was just shy of 560,000kms. They won’t all do it, but they can do it

Okay, I stand (partly) Corrected..
I still think (but Don't know) it'd be easier to Find High Km Cruisers than It would High KM Prado's....

[XR Martin]

There was a Prado getting around with over 1 million kms, read an article about it a few years ago.

Found the car.
Apparently the odo gets stuck at 999999, and must be reset.
Just noticed it's a petrol one. Perhaps the soot chuckers don't last that long.

https://www.cmitoyota.com.au/blogvie...next-level/504

[383hq]

A lot of numbers there
haven't (won't) watch the video, but fuel consumption is a function of throttle position.

throttle position is a function of your foot (and depends on a few things such as road type/incline, wind, rolling resistance, BSFC of the engine and gearing, drivetrain frictional losses etc etc)

Engineers , accountants and marketers compromise decision making depending on final product (the above items they can do something about) depending on the intended market/use. Prado intended use is very different market to the ute

Just ask Al Queda what they're prefer to strap a 50 cal AA gun to when they need to travel across the dunes at 40km/hr...

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by 383hq

A lot of numbers there
haven't (won't) watch the video, but fuel consumption is a function of throttle position.

throttle position is a function of your foot (and depends on a few things such as road type/incline, wind, rolling resistance, BSFC of the engine and gearing, drivetrain frictional losses etc etc)

Engineers , accountants and marketers compromise decision making depending on final product (the above items they can do something about) depending on the intended market/use. Prado intended use is very different market to the ute

Just ask Al Queda what they're prefer to strap a 50 cal AA gun to when they need to travel across the dunes at 40km/hr...

You're on the money with the number crunching, though I'd say Toyota's marketing strategy doesn't include that its vehicles are used by Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

More on that the reason these groups use Toyota's is because they're comparatively cheap to operate and maintain, easy to get your hands on and are much more fuel efficient compared to APCs/Tanks, their use for military purposes first occurred in North Africa with Chad militias fighting against Libya, Chad was gifted 400x Toyota Land Cruiser and Hilux utes by France who also backed up with them providing air support.

If these groups had the resources for military equipment they wouldn't be using Land Cruisers regardless of their reputation of being reliable

[XR Martin]

The 70 series landcruisers don't use the V8s overseas, we're the only ones to get it.
Either they have a 4L V6 or the old 4.2L TD I6.

These are the only road vehicle that I know of which has 4" more front track than the rear.
For a so called offroad vehicle that is such a terrible engineering decision.

There was rumors that 2021 model was supposed to have a wider rear axle and a 6 speed manual. Not sure what ever happened to that.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by XR Martin

The 70 series landcruisers don't use the V8s overseas, we're the only ones to get it.
Either they have a 4L V6 or the old 4.2L TD I6.

Marketing decision, 8 cylinders holds weight with our market as we've seen in this thread.

Personally I'm not a fan of that engine, injector problems and they're expensive, it was the same as the KUN26R Hilux with its 3L engine, injector problems as well (are they the same injector?) but at least there is only 4 of them in the case of the Hilux.

The front/rear track discrepancy is ridiculous but its obvious that engine bay wasn't designed for a V engine, the car was designed like 30 years ago.

Even only offering a 5sp manual is a bit antiquated, its not a $18,000 car its a $70K price point, it should have 6 gears.

Further on from this it seems the twin turbo variant of the same engine is a much better proposition but its not offered in the 70 series, what is the factory turbo on the single turbo variants? Is it a fixed geometry turbo or using variable vane/nozzle? If its giving peak torque at 1200 RPM it would have to be on the small side which is maybe why it has such a small peak power figure, and the torque is crap too for the capacity. Maybe that single turbo is undersized from factory?

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Marketing decision, 8 cylinders holds weight with our market as we've seen in this thread.

Personally I'm not a fan of that engine, injector problems and they're expensive, it was the same as the KUN26R Hilux with its 3L engine, injector problems as well (are they the same injector?) but at least there is only 4 of them in the case of the Hilux.

The front/rear track discrepancy is ridiculous but its obvious that engine bay wasn't designed for a V engine, the car was designed like 30 years ago.

Even only offering a 5sp manual is a bit antiquated, its not a $18,000 car its a $70K price point, it should have 6 gears.

Vee mounted starter motor (which fills with water/mud) and a low mounted alternator is another poor engineering design.

[Hulsty]

Originally Posted by XR Martin

These are the only road vehicle that I know of which has 4" more front track than the rear.
For a so called offroad vehicle that is such a terrible engineering decision.

Not that unusual, leaf spring patrols were the same, long before Toyota did it.

Stock the V8 leaves much to be desired, their popularity is they can be easily modified for much more power/torque.

[383hq]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

You're on the money with the number crunching, though I'd say Toyota's marketing strategy doesn't include that its vehicles are used by Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

More on that the reason these groups use Toyota's is because they're comparatively cheap to operate and maintain, easy to get your hands on and are much more fuel efficient compared to APCs/Tanks, their use for military purposes first occurred in North Africa with Chad militias fighting against Libya, Chad was gifted 400x Toyota Land Cruiser and Hilux utes by France who also backed up with them providing air support.

If these groups had the resources for military equipment they wouldn't be using Land Cruisers regardless of their reputation of being reliable

I should have typed ISIS
https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/japa...ker-of-choice/

it was tongue in cheek, intended to show the difference in markets/use that drive engineers to choose a certain gearing set, driveline and wheel set (frictional losses and rolling resistance)

If i remember correctly the v8 tt wouldn't kick into top gear with Aus's lower highway speeds, many people went back saying they had a problem - the auto wouldn't kick into 6th until over 120. Useless for everyone except SA/WA/NT.

Toyota solution was to reprogram for 6th at 100-120, likely costing fuel efficiency, due greater throttle positions required, as 6th was suitable for higher (then aus) cruising speeds seen in many other countries like the Middle east.

A greater overdriven gear doesn't always equate to better fuel efficency at a certain speed. Particularly with large square objects being pushed through the air above 90 km/h

Track delta f-r and starter motor designs were unusual NFG design cues from Toyota

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by 383hq

I should have typed ISIS
https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/japa...ker-of-choice/

it was tongue in cheek, intended to show the difference in markets/use that drive engineers to choose a certain gearing set, driveline and wheel set (frictional losses and rolling resistance)

If i remember correctly the v8 tt wouldn't kick into top gear with Aus's lower highway speeds, many people went back saying they had a problem - the auto wouldn't kick into 6th until over 120. Useless for everyone except SA/WA/NT.

Toyota solution was to reprogram for 6th at 100-120, likely costing fuel efficiency, due greater throttle positions required, as 6th was suitable for higher (then aus) cruising speeds seen in many other countries like the Middle east.

A greater overdriven gear doesn't always equate to better fuel efficency at a certain speed. Particularly with large square objects being pushed through the air above 90 km/h

Track delta f-r and starter motor designs were unusual NFG design cues from Toyota

With the NFG design on the front wheel track it makes me wonder if that was the compromise for getting that engine in that body? IE the platform would require redesign otherwise, the alternative if small market Australia REALLY wants its V8 variant, then the compromise is the front track is going to be huge to fit that engine in there, or the other option is Toyota turns its back on this market where it moves well.

The starter motor design being in the vee isn't unusual for Toyota - the 1UZFE has the same weirdness going on there, the thing is though Denso starter motors are really reliable, at best they eventually flog out the contacts in the solenoid, I've literally never seen a Denso starter motor fail on any other part.

[XR Martin]

I don't doubt the starter motors are reliable, however as soon as that valley fills with water after a decent river crossing kiss that starter goodbye.
Although being manual only, you can usually get it going regardless.

The Mercedes G-wagon is much better designed. (the proper off road one, not the poser one)
Although they're problem is the suspension is too stiff and it has bugger all articulation.

[chevypower]

The Toyota V8 diesel was underwhelming in 2007 when it came out. For comparison, the 2007 Jeep/Mercedes 3.0 CRD pumped out 160/510. I wouldn’t expect Toyota to put out 50% more power and torque than that to match the specific output per litre, but I certainly wouldn’t expect it to be less!

[smoo]

It takes until 2020 for this flog to tell us what most people knew 12 years ago.

For balance is Cadogan going to do a similar video hating on Hyundai for having archaic petrol engines in their line up whose figures are no better than what the Euros were putting out in the 1990’s...
Or will that result in a pay cut.

BTW 15l is a bit mis leading. My old work one on 33” tyres was over 3 tonne gross and would return 16.5l/100km Highway or town or combined.
A work mate bought a single cab new with steel tray and said it gets 11l/100km.
I’m sure if you loaded a wheezing four cylinder diesel to over 3t and put larger tyres on it they wouldn’t be significantly better on fuel.

[fiestaz]

Originally Posted by smoo

It takes until 2020 for this flog to tell us what most people knew 12 years ago.

For balance is Cadogan going to do a similar video hating on Hyundai for having archaic petrol engines in their line up whose figures are no better than what the Euros were putting out in the 1990’s...
Or will that result in a pay cut.

BTW 15l is a bit mis leading. My old work one on 33” tyres was over 3 tonne gross and would return 16.5l/100km Highway or town or combined.
A work mate bought a single cab new with steel tray and said it gets 11l/100km.
I’m sure if you loaded a wheezing four cylinder diesel to over 3t and put larger tyres on it they wouldn’t be significantly better on fuel.

1992 VW Golf GTi had 77kw and 155nm

2020 Hyundai i30 has 120kw and 203nm.

You’re right, no progress at all.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by fiestaz

1992 VW Golf GTi had 77kw and 155nm

2020 Hyundai i30 has 120kw and 203nm.

You’re right, no progress at all.

Nice Cherry picking a car from the 1980s which was retired at the beginning of the 1990s. MkII Golf. The Mk3 Golf 2.0 16v was 112kw & 180nm.

Hyundai Kona 110kw/180nm

E46 BMW 318i 110kw/190nm
Mercedes e200 c200 100kw/190nm
Citroen Xantia Peugeot 406 105kw/182nm.
Volvo B4 2.0 103kw/183nm.

Not a fan of on paper stats. But since Cadogan dedicated 30minutes of drivel to it why not.

[fiestaz]

Originally Posted by smoo

Nice Cherry picking a car from the 1980s which was retired at the beginning of the 1990s. MkII Golf. The Mk3 Golf 2.0 16v was 112kw & 180nm.

Hyundai Kona 110kw/180nm

E46 BMW 318i 110kw/190nm
Mercedes e200 c200 100kw/190nm
Citroen Xantia Peugeot 406 105kw/182nm.
Volvo B4 2.0 103kw/183nm.

Not a fan of on paper stats. But since Cadogan dedicated 30minutes of drivel to it why not.

I apologise I did not pick the correct year of GTi for you. I went for 90s. And it was a 90s car.

But if we want to make this completely fair. You have your mk3 Golf GTi. As a hot hatch comparison, i30N at 200kw+ in 2020.

If you want to pick on Hyundai some more. Check out competitors such as mazda3, corolla for their power figures. They are all on par with each other in reality.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by fiestaz

I apologise I did not pick the correct year of GTi for you. I went for 90s. And it was a 90s car.

But if we want to make this completely fair. You have your mk3 Golf GTi. As a hot hatch comparison, i30N at 200kw+ in 2020.

If you want to pick on Hyundai some more. Check out competitors such as mazda3, corolla for their power figures. They are all on par with each other in reality.

I know what you mean, and am aware Hyundai have better offerings in their range, as do Toyota. But fairs fair if he’s going to rag on an old engine and spec Toyota then the same can be done to his beloved Hyundai. I don’t think he’s in a rush to make a video on that.

[jpd80]

I'm surprised that Mr. Cardogan didn't compare the TDV8's power and torque
with Rangers near identical 157 Is/500 mm


,........or was that too painful to admit?

[eb2fairmont]

It’s simply this

It’s 8 cylinders. And it’s derated as they used the 6cyl gearbox and couldn’t get the twins in the bay.

The turbo 6 was much better to drive, on paper the 8 has more torque down low but it is much easier to stall and felt doughy down low.

[mac_man_luke]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'm surprised that Mr. Cardogan didn't compare the TDV8's power and torque
with Rangers near identical 157 Is/500 mm


,........or was that too painful to admit?

On paper yes but i have owned a ranger and now have a LC79
The torque band on the V8 is so much lower down and larger

LC is also almost 5 years old now with nothing but maintenance

Ranger had 2 auto boxes, broken flexplate, multiple lots of seals in the transfer case, 2 cvs, front cover oil leaks, idler pully replaced, split intake pipes etc
at 3.5-4 years old

Yes the LC is less comfortable/fun to drive but its very well made, reliable and an absolute as soon as you leave the bitumen.

[kevino]

That last post is the reason why people buy these LC 70,s.
You cant argue with logic.

[Romulus]

I'd prefer Audi's 4.2 V8 diesel making250kw/800nm or their V12 making 368kw/1000nm over Toyota's 4.5 V8.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Romulus

I'd prefer Audi's 4.2 V8 diesel making250kw/800nm or their V12 making 368kw/1000nm over Toyota's 4.5 V8.

Jap Diesels are always junk compared to Euro and American stuff, low output.

[XR Martin]

I'll take a Ford 6.7L diesel thanks.
354kw/1424nm.